Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

15 March 2000 (1)

(Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Cement market - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Single and continuous infringement - General agreement and measures of implementation - Liability for an infringement - Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation - Links between the general agreement and the measures of implementation as regards objects and participants - Fine - Determination of the amount)

In Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95,

T-25/95

Cimenteries CBR SA, a company incorporated under Belgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Michel Waelbroeck, Alexandre Vandencasteele, Denis Waelbroeck and, initially, also by Olivier Speltdoorn, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

T-26/95

Cembureau - Association Européenne du Ciment, an association constituted under Belgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Julian Ellison, Solicitor, and Mark Clough, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-30/95

Fédération de l'Industrie Cimentière Belge ASBL, an association constituted under Belgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Onno Willem Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, and Frédéric P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-31/95

Eerste Nederlandse Cementindustrie NV (ENCI), a company incorporated under Netherlands law, established in 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, represented by Mark B.W. Biesheuvel, of the Hague Bar, and T. Martijn Snoep, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-32/95

Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC), an association constituted under Netherlands law, established in 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, represented by Piet A. Wackie Eysten, of the Hague Bar, and T. Martijn Snoep, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-34/95

Ciments Luxembourgeois SA, a company incorporated under Luxembourg law, established in Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg, represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-35/95

Dyckerhoff AG, a company incorporated under German law, established in Wiesbaden, Germany, represented by Claus Tessin and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-36/95

Syndicat National de l'Industrie Cimentière (SFIC), an association constituted under French law, established in Paris, represented by Édouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel,

T-37/95

Vicat SA, a company incorporated under French law, established in Paris, represented by Édouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel,

T-38/95

Groupe Origny SA, a company incorporated under French law, established in Paris, successor to Cedest SA, represented by Xavier de Roux and Marie-Pia Hutin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-39/95

Ciments Français SA, a company incorporated under French law, established in Paris, represented by Antoine Winckler, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill,

T-42/95

Heidelberger Zement AG, a company incorporated under German law, established in Heidelberg, Germany, represented by Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, and Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart and Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-43/95

Lafarge Coppée SA, a company incorporated under French law, established in Paris, represented by Henry Lesguillons, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-44/95

Aalborg Portland A/S, a company incorporated under Danish law, established in Aalborg, Denmark, represented by Karen Dyekjær-Hansen and Katja Hoegh, Copenhagen, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-45/95

Alsen AG, formerly Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH, a company incorporated under German law, established in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-46/95

Alsen AG, formerly Nordcement AG, a company incorporated under German law, established in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-48/95

Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV, a registered association constituted under German law, established in Cologne, Germany, represented by Jochen Burrichter, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-50/95

Unicem SpA, a company incorporated under Italian law, established in Turin, Italy, represented by Franzo Grande Stevens and Andrea Gandini, of the Turin Bar, GianDomenico Magrone and Cristoforo Osti, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-51/95

Fratelli Buzzi SpA, a company incorporated under Italian law, established in Casale Monferrato, Italy, represented by Guido Brosio, Carlo Pavesio and Nicola Ceraolo, of the Turin Bar, Claudia Crescenzi and Silvia D'Alberti, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of René Faltz, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine,

T-52/95

Compañia Valenciana de Cementos Portland SA, a company incorporated under Spanish law, established in Madrid, represented by Santiago Martínez Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamante Köster, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-53/95

The Rugby Group plc, a company incorporated under English law, established in Rugby, United Kingdom, represented by Lynda Martin Alegi, Solicitor, London, and Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-54/95

British Cement Association, an association constituted under English law, established in Berkshire, United Kingdom, represented initially by Kenneth Parker QC, Robert Tudway and Dorcas Rogers, Solicitors, London, subsequently solely by Kenneth Parker QC and Robert Tudway, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

T-55/95

Asland SA, a company incorporated under Spanish law, established in Barcelona, Spain, represented initially by Antonio Creus Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the Barcelona Bar, and Antonio Hierro Hernández Mora, of the Madrid Bar, and, subsequently, Creus Carreras, Hierro Hernández-Mora and Marta Ventura Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels,

T-56/95

Castle Cement Ltd, a company incorporated under English law, established in Birmingham, United Kingdom, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook, Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

T-57/95

Heracles General Cement Company SA, a company incorporated under Greek law, established in Athens, represented by Kostas Loukopoulos, Sotirios Felios and Irini Gortsila, of the Athens Bar, and Sebastian Farr and Ciaran Walker, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jos Stoffel, 8 Rue Willy Goergen,

T-58/95

Corporación Uniland SA, a company incorporated under Spanish law, established in Barcelona, Spain, represented by Luis de Carlos Bertrán and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-59/95

Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (Oficemen), an association constituted under Spanish law, established in Madrid, represented initially by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Ramón Vidal Puig, of the Madrid Bar, subsequently solely by Folguera Crespo, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn and Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-60/95

Irish Cement Ltd, a company incorporated under Irish law, established in Dublin, represented initially by John D. Cooke, SC, and, subsequently, by Paul Sreenan, SC, instructed by Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien, Solicitors, Dublin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz & Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine,

T-61/95

Cimpor - Cimentos de Portugal SA, a company incorporated under Portuguese law, established in Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, Teresa Mendes, Amadeu Brandão Colaço and Adelino Duarte, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-62/95

SECIL - Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA, a company incorporated under Portuguese law, established in Outão, Setúbal, Portugal, represented by Nuno Mimoso Ruiz, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-63/95

Associação Técnica da Indústria de Cimento (ATIC), an association constituted under Portuguese law, established in Lisbon, represented by Mário João Marques Mendes, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-64/95

Titan Cement Company SA, a company incorporated under Greek law, established in Athens, represented by Ian S. Forrester QC, of the Scots Bar, and Aristotelis N. Kaplanidis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-65/95

Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, a company incorporated under Italian law, established in Bergamo, Italy, represented by André Faures, of the Brussels Bar, Cesare Lanciani, of the Milan Bar, Alberto Predieri, of the Florence Bar, Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the Bologna Bar, and Giulio Cesare Rizza, of the Syracuse Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill,

T-68/95

Holderbank Financière Glarus AG, a company incorporated under Swiss law, established in Jona, Switzerland, represented by Cornelis Canenbley and Michael Esser-Wellié, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix

T-69/95

Hornos Ibéricos Alba SA (Hisalba), a company incorporated under Spanish law, established in Madrid, represented by Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, Luis Suaréz de Lezo Mantilla, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,

T-70/95

Aker RGI ASA, a company incorporated under Norwegian law, established in Oslo, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook, Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

T-71/95

Scancem (publ) AB, formerly EUROC AB, a company incorporated under Swedish law, established in Malmö, Sweden, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook, Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

T-87/95

Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno SpA, a company incorporated under Italian law, established in Rome, represented by Gian Michele Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er,

T-88/95

Blue Circle Industries plc, a company incorporated under English law, established in London, represented initially by Jeremy Lever QC, Nicholas Green and Jessica Simor, Barristers, Laura Carstensen and Sarah Vaughan, Solicitors, and, subsequently, by Nicholas Green, Jessica Simor, Laura Carstensen and Marc Israel, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill,

T-103/95

Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados, an association constituted under Greek law, established in Athens, represented by Ioannis Georgakakis and Maria Golfinopoulou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

and

T-104/95

Tsimenta Chalkidos AE , a company incorporated under Greek law, established in Athens, represented by Panagiotis Marinou Bernitsas, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

applicants,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal (in all the cases), Julian Currall (in Case T-26/95), Wouter Wils (in Cases T-31/95 and T-32/95), Norbert Lorenz (initially in Cases T-34/95, T-35/95, T-42/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95 and T-68/95), Hans Peter Hartvig (in Case T-44/95), Klaus Wiedner (replacing Norbert Lorenz in Cases T-34/95, T-35/95, T-42/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95 and T-68/95), Francisco Enrique González-Díaz (initially in Cases T-52/95, T-55/95, T-58/95, T-59/95 and T-69/95), Francisco de Sousa Fialho (in Cases T-61/95, T-62/95 and T-63/95), Theofanis Christoforou (in Cases T-103/95 and T-104/95), of its Legal Service, and Rosemary Caudwell (in Cases T-53/95 and T-60/95), a national civil servant on secondment to the Commission, acting as Agents, assisted by Marc van der Woude and Jean-Jo Evrard, of the Brussels Bar (in Cases T-25/95 and T-30/95), Bertrand Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and Brussels (in Case T-34/95), Alexander Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt, Frankfurt am Main and Brussels (in Cases T-35/95 and T-42/95), Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar (in Cases T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95 and T-43/95), Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar (in Cases T-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), Renzo Maria Morresi, of the Bologna Bar (in Cases T-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), José Rivas Andrés, of the Madrid Bar (in Cases T-52/95, T-55/95, T-58/95, T-59/95 and T-69/95), David Lloyd Jones, Barrister (in Cases T-54/95 and T-88/95), Scott Crosby, Solicitor (in Cases T-56/95, T-70/95 and T-71/95), and Leonard Hawkes, Solicitor (in Cases T-57/95 and T-64/95), Victor Refega Fernandes, of the Lisbon Bar (in Cases T-61/95, T-62/95 and T-63/95), Rainer M. Bierwagen, of the Brussels Bar (in Case T-68/95), Mark Brealey, Barrister (in Case T-88/95), and Alkiviadis Oikonomou, of the Athens Bar (in Cases T-103/95 and T-104/95), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 - Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343, p. 1),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges,

Registrar: I. Maselis, Legal Secretary,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearings which took place on 16 September 1998 (in Cases T-26/95, T-36/95, T-37/95 and T-38/95), 18 September 1998 (in Cases T-39/95, T-43/95, T-70/95 and T-71/95), 23 September 1998 (in Cases T-53/95, T-54/95, T-56/95 and T-88/95), 25 September 1998 (in Cases T-57/95, T-64/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95), 30 September 1998 (in Cases T-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), 2 October 1998 (T-61/95, T-62/95 and T-63/95), 7 October 1998 (in Cases T-55/95, T-58/95 and T-59/95), 9 October 1998 (in Cases T-31/95, T-32/95, T-52/95 and T-69/95), 14 October 1998 (in Cases T-25/95, T-30/95, T-44/95 and T-60/95), 16 October 1998 (in Cases T-35/95, T-45/95, T-46/95 and T-48/95) and 21 October 1998 (in Cases T-34/95, T-42/95 and T-68/95),

gives the following

Judgment

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),

hereby:

1. Joins Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 for the purposes of judgment.

2. In Case T-25/95 Cimenteries CBR v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 - Cement) in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 4(4)(g) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 711 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

3. In Case T-26/95 Cembureau - Association Européenne du Ciment v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between the applicant and its members related, so far as concerns Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

4. In Case T-30/95 Fédération de l'Industrie Cimentière Belge v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

5. In Case T-31/95 Eerste Nederlandse Cementindustrie (ENCI) v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

6. In Case T-32/95 Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

7. In Case T-34/95 Ciments Luxembourgeois v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 617 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

8. In Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 055 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

9. In Case T-36/95 Syndicat National de l'Industrie Cimentière (SFIC) v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarland market, a concerted practice with Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV before 1984 and in a concerted practice designed to exert pressure on Cedest SA and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 3(3)(b) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds the existence of a concerted practice between the applicant and Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV designed to monitor the destination of French exports to Germany according to the Land of destination and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

10. In Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 11 May 1983 and after 23 April 1986;

- annuls Article 3(1)(c) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 23 April 1986;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 2 407 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

11. In Case T-38/95 Groupe Origny v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 3(3)(a) and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

12. In Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 17 February 1989 and in so far as it finds that the applicant implemented the Cembureau agreement by participating in the infringement referred to in Article 3(1)(b);

- annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 12 519 000;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 10 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 051 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

13. In Case T-42/95 Heidelberger Zement v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty before 17 November 1982 and after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) and (3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 056 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

14. In Case T-43/95 Lafarge Coppée v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 May 1989;

- annuls Article 3(1)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in a concerted practice with Fratelli Buzzi SpA involving the restriction of their autonomy of conduct with regard to production sources;

- annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarland market and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(4)(e) and (f) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 14 248 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

15. In Case T-44/95 Aalborg Portland v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 2 349 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

16. In Case T-45/95 Alsen v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

17. In Case T-46/95 Alsen v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

18. In Case T-48/95 Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarland market and a concerted practice with the Syndicat National de l'Industrie Cimentière (SFIC) before 1984, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 3(3)(b) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there was a concerted practice between the applicant and Syndicat National de l'Industrie Cimentière (SFIC) designed to monitor the destination of French exports to Germany according to the Land of destination and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty after 12 August 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

19. In Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 3 April 1992;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 6 399 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

20. In Case T-51/95 Fratelli Buzzi v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 3(1)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in a concerted practice with Lafarge Coppée SA involving the restriction of their autonomy of conduct with regard to production sources;

- annuls Article 3(1)(c) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 23 April 1986;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear one third of its own costs;

- orders the Commission to bear its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant.

21. In Case T-52/95 Compañia Valenciana de Cementos Portland v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 13 May 1987;

- annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 13 May 1987;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 250 000;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 10 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 388 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

22. In Case T-53/95 The Rugby Group v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(a) and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

23. In Case T-54/95 British Cement Association v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs.

24. In Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 28 May 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) and (3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 740 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs.

25. In Case T-56/95 Castle Cement v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(a), 5 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

26. In Case T-57/95 Heracles General Cement Company v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(d), (f) and (g), 6 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

27. In Case T-58/95 Corporación Uniland v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 592 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

28. In Case T-59/95 Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (Oficemen) v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 24 April 1989;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

29. In Case T-60/95 Irish Cement v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 2 065 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

30. In Case T-61/95 Cimpor - Cimentos de Portugal v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 24 April 1989;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 4 312 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

31. In Case T-62/95 SECIL - Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 24 April 1989;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 395 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

32. In Case T-63/95 Associação Técnica da Indústria de Cimento (ATIC) v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

33. In Case T-64/95 Titan Cement Company v Commission:

- annuls Articles 1, 4(4)(b), (c), (e), (g) and (h), 6 and 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- orders the Commission to pay the costs.

34. In Case T-65/95 Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 19 March 1984 and after 3 April 1992;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 19 March 1984 and after that date;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 25 701 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

35. In Case T-68/95 Holderbank Financière Glarus v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(4)(c) and (d) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 1 918 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

36. In Case T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos Alba (Hisalba) v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 May 1989;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 836 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

37. In Case T-70/95 Aker RGI ASA v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 4(4)(h) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 14 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

38. In Case T-71/95 Scancem (publ) v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 4(4)(h) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 14 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

39. In Case T-87/95 Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 3 April 1992;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 14 January 1983;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 4(1) and (2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 471 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

40. In Case T-88/95 Blue Circle Industries v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983 and after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annuls Article 4(4)(a) and (b) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern the applicant;

- annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 7 717 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

41. In Case T-103/95 Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there were agreements on the exchange of price information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of Cembureau - The European Cement Association, and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

- annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau - The European Cement Association and its members related, so far as concerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries' producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country's producer;

- annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders each party to bear its own costs.

42. In Case T-104/95 Tsimenta Chalkidos v Commission:

- annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;

- annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;

- fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 510 000;

- dismisses the remainder of the application;

- orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- orders the Commission to bear one half of its own costs.

LindhGarcía-Valdecasas Lenaerts Azizi Jaeger

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 March 2000.

H. Jung P. Lindh Registrar President

Procedure § 23

Forms of order sought § 30

The claim for annulment of the decision of 23 September 1993 inasmuch as it terminated the international part of the proceeding initiated against 12 German undertakings and six Spanish undertakings § 77

The claim for annulment of the contested decision § 85

I - The pleas alleging various infringements of essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure § 85

The first plea: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle of equal treatment in that the whole of the SO and the documents relating thereto were not accessible during the administrative procedure § 87

A - Preliminary observations § 88

B - The notification of part of the SO § 104

1. The inseparability of the SO and the applicants' right of access to the whole of it § 105

2. The existence of an inseparable link between the national and international agreements and concerted practices and the applicants' right of access to the whole of the SO § 110

3. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 122

C - Inaccessibility of some parts of the SO and of some documents in the investigation file which might have contained exculpatory evidence § 124

1. Organisation of access to the file during the administrative procedure § 127

1.1 Irregularities in the organisation of access to the file in regard to accessible documents § 128

1.2 Organisation of access to the file was irregular because the applicants did not have access to certain documents § 140

2. The various measures of organisation of procedure ordered by the Court § 158

2.1 Preliminary observations § 158

2.2 The various measures ordered § 163

2.3. The conditions under which the Commission was to perform the measures of organisation of procedure § 173

2.3.1. The measure of 19 January to 2 February 1996 § 174

2.3.2. The measure of 2 October 1996 § 176

2.3.3. The measure of 18 and 19 June 1997 § 185

2.3.4. Interim findings § 210

2.3.5. Special circumstances which impaired the effectiveness of the measures of 2 October 1996 and 18 and 19 June 1997 § 212

3. Analytical framework for assessing an argument alleging infringement of the rights of the defence because of the inaccessibility of allegedly exculpatory evidence during the administrative procedure § 237

4. Application of the principles to the present case § 249

5. General arguments relating to infringement of the rights of defence during the administrative procedure § 267

6. Conclusions § 280

D - The use in the contested decision of incriminating documents not disclosed to the applicants during the administrative procedure or not identified in the SO § 281

1. Preliminary observations § 281

2. Documents neither cited nor mentioned in the contested decision § 286

3. Documents mentioned in the contested decision to describe a fact or conduct, but not used to make a finding of an infringement § 288

4. Documents supporting the finding of an infringement in the contested decision but not relating to infringements attributed to the applicants relying on those documents § 304

5. Documents used in the contested decision in the context of an infringement attributed to the applicant who is relying on them § 318

6. Conclusions § 379

E - The failure to send to the applicants documents which were not in the investigation file § 380

1. Preliminary observations § 380

2. Replies to the SO by other addressees § 384

2.1 Use of replies to the SO as incriminating evidence § 386

2.2 Exculpatory evidence which might have been contained in the replies to the SO § 404

3. Records of the hearings relating to the national agreements and concerted practices § 408

4. The Commission's file on the notification of the Belgian-Dutch Basing point system § 411

5. The Commission's file on State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic and on the inter-governmental agreement between Greece and the United Kingdom § 416

6. Internal notes of the Commission not included in the investigation file § 418

7. The Commission's statements in defence § 430

8. Conclusions § 435

The second, third and fourth pleas: infringements of the rights of the defence, of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 190 of the Treaty as a result of the Commission's abandonment of the national objections and, as against some undertakings, of the international objections § 436

A - The dropping of the national objections § 438

B - The abandonment of the international objections as against some undertakings § 461

The fifth plea: procedural irregularity by the Commission in dropping some international objections as against Irish Cement § 472

The sixth plea: infringement of the rights of the defence resulting from the incomplete and imprecise nature of the SO § 475

A - Preliminary observations § 475

B - The allegedly incomplete nature of the SO § 477

1. The alleged failure by the Commission to state in the SO that it intended to fine trade associations § 478

2. The method of dealing with the CBS agreement § 489

3. The alleged failure to explain the Commission's territorial jurisdiction § 494

4. The alleged failure to analyse the market and to precisely define the relevant markets § 497

C - The alleged lack of precision in the SO as to the participation of certain applicants in various objections raised in the SO § 504

1. Participation of the applicants concerned in the infringement constituted by the Cembureau agreement and the duration of that infringement § 506

1.1. Participation in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 510

1.1.1. Addressees of the SO which are members of Cembureau § 511

1.1.2. Addressees which are not direct members of Cembureau or regarded in the SO as not being direct members § 516

1.1.2.1. Addressees of the SO, not direct members of Cembureau, which are alleged to have participated in bilateral or multilateral agreements and concerted practices § 518

1.1.2.2. Addressees of the SO, not direct members of Cembureau, which are alleged to have participated in the activities of the ECEC § 528

1.1.2.3. Addressees of the SO, not direct members of Cembureau, which are alleged to have participated in the activities of the EPC § 537

1.1.3. Interim conclusions § 542

1.2. Membership of a national association that was a direct member of Cembureau as a criterion for attributing responsibility for the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 544

1.3. Duration of participation in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 569

1.4. Conclusions § 581

2. Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in the exchanges of information on prices and the duration of that infringement § 582

3. Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in the bilateral and multilateral agreements referred to in Article 3 of the contested decision § 585

4. Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in the setting-up of the ETF and in the measures adopted in the framework thereof, referred to in Article 4 of the contested decision, and as regards the duration of those infringements § 594

5. Precision of the SO as regards the applicants' participation in the concerted practices in the framework of the export committees referred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision, and as regards the duration of those infringements § 615

The seventh plea: infringements of the rights of the defence and of Article 3 of Regulation No 1 resulting from the failure to translate certain documents § 627

The eighth plea: infringement of the rights of the defence resulting from mistranslation and misquotation of certain documents § 647

The ninth plea: infringements of the rights of the defence and of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 99/63 as a result of the inadequate period for replying to the SO § 652

The 10th plea: infringements of the rights of the defence, of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 and of Article 7(1), Article 8(1) and Article 9 of Regulation No 99/63 resulting from the defective organisation of the hearings § 657

A - Preliminary remarks § 657

B - The first part: infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 99/63 § 659

1. The Hearing Officer's programme for the hearings § 662

2. Alleged irregularities during the hearings concerning the international objections § 664

3. Alleged irregularities at the hearings concerning the national objections § 675

4. Other irregularities during the hearings § 682

C - Second part: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 99/63 § 691

D - Third part: infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 99/63 § 696

The 11th plea: breach of the principle of ex officio investigation § 702

The 12th plea: the rights of the defence were infringed by the excessive length of the administrative procedure § 706

The 13th plea: infringement of Article 6 of the ECHR § 712

The 14th plea: breach of the principle of presumption of innocence § 725

The 15th plea: infringement of the right of the parties not to give evidence against themselves § 731

The 16th plea: infringement of Article 10 of Regulation No 17 in that there was no proper consultation of the Advisory Committee § 740

The 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th pleas: infringement of the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of sound administration, the principle of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations during the administrative procedure § 751

The 21st plea: infringement of the principle of collegiate responsibility when the contested decision was adopted § 758

The 22nd plea: improper authentication and notification of the contested decision § 762

II The plea alleging misuse of powers § 776

III - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, the principle of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commission found in Article 1 of the contested decision that there had been an agreement contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants concerned had participated in it § 782

Preliminary observations § 782

The infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 785

Definition of the relevant market § 825

A - The relevant product market § 827

B - The relevant geographical market § 832

C - Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 836

Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 852

The existence of the Cembureau agreement § 861

A - Infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty § 862

1. Documents referred to in recital 18 of the contested decision § 872

1.1. Internal Blue Circle memoranda § 875

1.2. Statement by Mr Kalogeropoulos at the Heracles Board Meeting held on 25 June 1986 § 902

1.3. Admission by Cembureau § 914

1.4. Conclusions § 920

2. Conclusion of the Cembureau agreement at the Head Delegates meeting held on 14 January 1983 and confirmation of that agreement at the Head Delegates meetings held on 19 March and 7 November 1984 § 921

2.1. The competence of the Head Delegates to conclude the Cembureau agreement § 923

2.2. Conclusion of the Cembureau agreement at the Head Delegates meeting held on 14 January 1983 § 929

2.1 Letter convening the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January 1983 § 930

2.2.2. Amendments to the agenda for the Head Delegates meeting held on 14 January 1983. § 942

2.2.3. Content of the documents relating to the conduct of the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January 1983 § 955

2.2.4. Conclusions regarding the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January 1983 § 1003

2.3. Confirmation of the Cembureau agreement at the meeting of Head Delegates on 19 March 1984 § 1004

2.4. Confirmation of the Cembureau agreement at the meeting of Head Delegates on 7 November 1984 § 1028

2.5. Failure to take other Head Delegates meetings into consideration § 1047

2.6. General arguments relating to the evidential value of the documents referred to in recitals 18 and 19 of the contested decision § 1050

2.7. Documents subsequent to the Head Delegates meetings showing that the Cembureau agreement was not concluded at the meeting held on 14 January 1983 or confirmed at the meetings held on 19 March and 7 November 1984 § 1061

2.8. Characterisation as an agreement within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty § 1071

2.9. Object and nature of the Cembureau agreement § 1079

3. The Cembureau agreement as an infringement of the Treaty: restriction of competition and effects on trade between Member States § 1085

4. Conclusions § 1095

B - Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 1096

C - Breach of the rights of the defence when access was given to the file § 1110

1. Incriminating evidence § 1111

2. Exculpatory evidence § 1113

2.1. Arguments raised by several applicants § 1114

2.2. Case T-25/95 CBR v Commission § 1133

2.3. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission § 1143

2.4. Case T-30/95 FIC v Commission § 1152

2.5. Cases T-31/95 ENCI v Commission and T-32/95 VNC v Commission § 1167

2.6. Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission § 1171

2.7. Case T-36/95 SFIC v Commission § 1181

2.8. Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission § 1190

2.9. Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 1196

2.10. Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission § 1198

2.11. Case T-43/95 Lafarge v Commission § 1204

2.12. Case T-44/95 Aalborg v Commission § 1209

2.13. Case T-48/95 BDZ v Commission § 1218

2.14. Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission § 1220

2.15. Case T-51/95 Buzzi v Commission § 1226

2.16. Case T-57/95 Heracles v Commission § 1228

2.17. Cases T-53/95 Rugby v Commission, T-56/95 Castle v Commission, T-70/95 Aker v Commission and T-71/95 EUROC v Commission § 1238

2.18. Case T-60/95 Irish Cement v Commission § 1243

2.19. Cases T-61/95 Cimpor v Commission, T-62/95 SECIL v Commission and T-63/95 ATIC v Commission § 1252

2.20. Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission § 1256

2.21. Case T-68/95 Holderbank v Commission § 1268

2.22. Case T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos v Commission § 1272

2.23. Case T-87/95 Cementir v Commission § 1277

2.24. Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 1285

3. Conclusions § 1295

The applicants' participation in the Cembureau agreement § 1296

A - Preliminary observations § 1296

B - Membership of a national association that is a member of Cembureau as a criterion for attributing liability for the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1307

C - Power of Head Delegates and associations of undertakings to conclude the Cembureau agreement § 1312

D - The finding that both undertakings and associations were responsible for the same infringement § 1322

E - Participation of Cembureau and its direct members in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1331

1. Proof of participation of Cembureau and its direct members in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1332

1.1. Succession of certain direct members of Cembureau § 1334

1.2. Applicants which participated in one or more meetings of the Head Delegates § 1342

1.2.1. Participation in the meetings of the Head Delegates at which the Cembureau agreement was concluded and then confirmed § 1342

1.2.2. The parties' claims to have distanced themselves and other circumstances relied on in order to contest their participation in the Cembureau agreement § 1354

1.2.3. Alleged inadmissibility of certain documents against direct members of Cembureau § 1396

1.2.4. Conclusions regarding the participation of Cembureau and its direct members, other than Unicem, in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1400

1.3. Situation of Unicem, a direct member of Cembureau which did not participate in any of the Head Delegates meetings § 1404

2. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 1418

3. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 1423

4. Infringement of the rights of the defence when access was granted to the file § 1429

4.1. Incriminating evidence § 1429

4.2. Exculpatory evidence § 1432

4.2.1. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission § 1433

4.2.2. Case T-87/95 Cementir v Commission § 1435

F - Participation of Unicem, of the indirect members of Cembureau and of Buzzi in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1439

G - Conclusions § 1449

IV - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, of the principle of equal treatment and of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the Commission finds that there were two infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty concerning exchanges of price information at Cembureau level and that the various parties participated in them (contested decision, Article 2(1) and (2)) § 1450

Preliminary observations § 1450

Agreements on the exchange of price information at Cembureau meetings (Article 2(1) of the contested decision) § 1458

A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 1460

B - The existence of agreements on exchanges of price information during the Cembureau Head Delegates and Executive Committee meetings § 1467

1. Cembureau Head Delegates meetings. § 1470

2. Cembureau Executive Committee meetings. § 1478

C - The unlawful nature of the exchanges of price information which took place at the Head Delegates meetings on 14 January 1983 and on 19 March 1984 § 1501

D - The participation of the applicants in the infringement referred to in Article 2(1) of the contested decision § 1538

Concerted practices involving the periodic exchanges of price information (Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of the contested decision) § 1576

A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 1579

B - Identification of the information referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of the contested decision § 1607

C - The unlawful nature of the periodic exchanges of price information § 1620

D - The participation of the applicants in the infringement referred to in Article 2(2) of the contested decision § 1683

E - The duration of the infringement referred to in Article 2(2) of the contested decision § 1738

Access to the file § 1756

Conclusions § 1817

V - The pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and of the rights of the defence in that the Commission finds the existence of three Franco-Italian concerted practices which infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the applicants in question participated in them (Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the contested decision) § 1819

Introduction § 1819

Concerted practice between Lafarge and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(a) of the contested decision § 1829

A - Introduction § 1829

B - Correspondence between the Statement of Objections (SO) and the contested decision § 1831

C - The existence of an anti-competitive concerted practice between Lafarge and Buzzi with regard to the sharing of the south of France market § 1836

D - Duration of the infringement § 1869

Concerted practice between Ciments Français and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(b) of the contested decision § 1877

A - Introduction § 1877

B - Whether there was an anti-competitive concerted practice between Ciments Français and Buzzi § 1878

C - Duration of the infringement § 1917

Concerted practice between Vicat and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(c) of the contested decision § 1922

A - Introduction § 1922

B - Existence of an anti-competitive concerted practice between Vicat and Buzzi § 1924

C - The duration of the infringement § 1960

Access to the file § 1971

A - Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission § 1973

B - Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 1992

C - Case T-51/95 Buzzi v Commission § 1999

Conclusions § 2034

VI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the principle of equal treatment and rights of the defence in that the Commission found that there was a Hispano-Portuguese agreement which infringed Article 85(1)of the Treaty and that various applicants participated in it (contested decision, Article 3(2)) § 2036

Introduction § 2036

Infringement referred to in Article 3(2) of the contested decision § 2041

A - The Commission's analysis § 2041

B - Agreement between Oficemen, Cimpor and SECIL on the monitoring of cement movements between Spain and Portugal and on non-transhipment to their respective home markets § 2053

1. Conclusion of the agreement § 2054

2. Implementation of the agreement § 2067

2.1 Meetings held between Oficemen, Cimpor and SECIL § 2070

2.2 Cimpor's refusal to sell § 2083

2.3. Conclusions § 2092

3. Specific circumstances ruling out the existence of an agreement § 2093

4. SECIL's special position § 2107

5. Conclusion § 2111

C - Unlawful nature of the applicants' conduct § 2112

D - Duration of the infringement § 2124

Breach of the principle of equal treatment § 2133

Infringement of the rights of the defence when access to the file was granted § 2136

A - Incriminating documents § 2136

B - Exculpatory documents § 2137

1. Case T-59/95 Oficemen v Commission § 2140

2. Cases T-61/95 Cimpor v Commission, and T-62/95 SECIL v Commission § 2142

Conclusion § 2165

VII - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, the principle of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commission finds that there was a Franco-German agreement and concerted practice contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that various applicants participated therein (contested decision, Article 3(3)(a)) § 2166

Preliminary observations § 2166

Agreement to share the Saarland market § 2172

Concerted practices between various French and German producers and associations between 1982 and 1984 § 2226

A - Talks between SFIC and BDZ § 2236

B - Pressure exerted on Cedest by SFIC and the other French producers concerned § 2252

C - Concerted action between Cedest, Dyckerhoff and Heidelberger § 2282

D - Concerted action between Lafarge and Dyckerhoff § 2295

E - Concerted action by Dyckerhoff and Ciments Français § 2316

General regulation of cement supplies between France and Germany § 2331

A - Conclusion of an agreement in 1984 § 2336

B - Pursuit of the agreement after 1986 § 2390

Duration of the participation of certain parties in the infringement referred to in Article 3(3)(a) § 2421

Access to the file § 2444

Conclusion § 2469

VIII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and of the rights of the defence in that the Commission finds the existence of a concerted practice between SFIC and BDZ contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty (contested decision, Article 3(3)(b)) § 2471

Concerted practice between SFIC and BDZ § 2471

Access to the file § 2493

IX - Pleas alleging infringement of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, of the principle of equal treatment, of the rights of the defence, and abuse of process and misuse of powers in that the Commission finds that there were agreements and concerted practices within the framework of the ETF contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants participated in them (contested decision, Article 4(1), (2), (3)(a) and (b) and (4)(a) to (h)) § 2504

Preliminary observations § 2504

The agreement relating to the setting-up of the ETF (contested decision, Article 4(1)) § 2513

A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 2518

B - Unlawful nature of the agreement setting up the ETF § 2530

C - Participation, in the agreement setting up the ETF, of the applicants named in Article 4(1) of the contested decision § 2592

1. Preliminary observations § 2592

2. CBR § 2596

3. Cembureau § 2607

4. Dyckerhoff § 2614

5. SFIC § 2621

6. Ciments Français § 2626

7. Heidelberger § 2633

8. Lafarge § 2648

9. Aalborg § 2651

10. BDZ § 2661

11. Unicem § 2674

12. Asland § 2684

13. Uniland § 2692

14. Oficemen § 2705

15. Irish Cement § 2726

16. Italcementi § 2745

17. Aker and EUROC § 2755

18. Cementir § 2767

D - Duration of the infringement found in Article 4(1) of the contested decision § 2783

E - Access to the file § 2816

1. Preliminary observations § 2816

2. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission § 2818

3. Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission § 2822

4. Case T-36/95 SFIC v Commission § 2851

5. Case T-35/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 2858

6. Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission § 2867

7. Case T-43/95 Lafarge v Commission § 2870

8. Case T-44/95 Aalborg v Commission § 2888

9. Case T-48/95 BDZ v Commission § 2899

10. Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission § 2902

11. Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission § 2911

12. Case T-58/95 Uniland v Commission and Case T-59/95 Oficemen v Commission § 2917

13. Case T-60/95 Irish Cement v Commission § 2928

14. Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission § 2938

15. Case T-68/95 Holderbank v Commission § 2949

16. Case T-70/95 Aker v Commission and Case T-71/95 EUROC v Commission § 2958

17. Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 2962

Agreement on the setting-up of the Joint Trading Company, Interciment (Article 4(2) of the contested decision) § 2968

A - Introduction § 2968

B - The unlawful nature of the setting-up of Interciment § 2973

C - The participation in the agreement setting up Interciment of the applicants referred to in Article 4(2) of the contested decision § 2997

1. Preliminary observations § 2997

2. CBR, Dyckerhoff, Lafarge, Italcementi, Aker and EUROC § 2999

3. SFIC, BDZ and Oficemen § 3022

4. Ciments Français § 3033

5. Heidelberger § 3039

6. Unicem § 3047

7. Asland § 3057

8. Uniland § 3066

9. Cementir § 3076

D - The duration of the infringement found in Article 4(2) of the contested decision § 3081

E - Access to the file § 3105

Measures to defend the Italian market (contested decision, Article 4(3)) § 3133

A - Concerted practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi from the Greek producers, and from Titan in particular (contested decision, Article 4(3)(a)). § 3135

1. Existence of concerted practices § 3138

2. The applicants' participation in the concerted practices § 3190

2.1. CBR, Dyckerhoff, Aalborg, Uniland and Irish Cement § 3193

2.2. Ciments Français § 3208

2.3. Heidelberger § 3216

2.4. Lafarge § 3224

2.5. BDZ and Oficemen § 3234

2.6. Unicem § 3245

2.7. Asland § 3254

2.8. Italcementi § 3264

2.9. Holderbank § 3271

2.10. Aker and EUROC § 3276

2.11. Cementir § 3283

2.12. Blue Circle § 3291

3. The duration of the infringement § 3301

4. Access to the file § 3311

B - Agreement concerning the contracts and agreements signed in April 1987 with Calcestruzzi (contested decision, Article 4(3)(b)) § 3343

1. Existence of the infringement § 3345

2. Access to the file § 3387

Measures intended to deflect the Greek production surplus and to curb imports of cement from Greece into the Member States (contested decision, Article 4(4)) § 3397

A - Concerted practice referred to in Article 4(4)(a) of the contested decision § 3402

B - Agreements and concerted practice referred to in Article 4(4)(b) to (h) of the contested decision § 3437

1. Agreement between Blue Circle and Titan referred to in Article 4(4)(b) of the contested decision § 3451

2. Agreement between Holderbank and Titan referred to in Article 4(4)(c) of the contested decision § 3515

3. Agreement between Holderbank and Heracles referred to in Article 4(4)(d) of the contested decision § 3547

4. Agreement between Lafarge and Titan referred to in Article 4(4)(e) of the contested decision § 3570

5. Agreement between Lafarge and Heracles referred to in Article 4(4)(f) of the contested decision § 3601

6. Concerted practice between CBR, Heracles and Titan referred to in Article 4(4)(g) of the contested decision § 3619

7. Agreement between Aker, EUROC and Titan referred to in Article 4(4)(h) of the contested decision § 3648

Characterisation, as a single and continuous agreement, of the agreements and concerted practices referred to in Article 4 of the contested decision § 3680

A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 3689

B - The single and continuous nature of the infringement referred to in Article 4 of the contested decision § 3694

C - Participation in the single agreement relating to the ETF § 3719

1. CBR § 3720

2. Cembureau § 3727

3. Ciments Français § 3733

4. Unicem § 3740

5. Uniland § 3746

6. Italcementi § 3753

7. Cementir § 3758

D - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 3763

Conclusions § 3769

X - The pleas of infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty and of the rights of the defence in that the Commission finds that there were concerted practices within the framework of the ECEC contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants concerned participated in them (Article 5 of the contested decision) § 3771

Preliminary observations § 3771

Contested decision § 3773

The unlawful nature of the activities of the ECEC referred to in Article 5 of the contested decision § 3783

A - The ECEC's members' direct or indirect membership of Cembureau § 3795

B - Links between the ECEC and the EPC § 3803

C - ECEC's activities not confined to the overseas export markets § 3822

Conclusions § 3849

XI - Pleas of infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty and of the rights of the defence in that the Commission finds that there was a concerted practice within the framework of the EPC contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants concerned participated in it (Article 6 of the contested decision) § 3851

Preliminary observations § 3851

Contested decision § 3854

Concerted practice designed to prevent incursions by competitors on respective home markets within the Community § 3864

A - Links between the EPC and Cembureau § 3875

B - Ciments Français internal memos § 3882

C - Documents issuing from the EPC structure showing that the members of that committee had themselves established a link between domestic markets and the EPC's activities § 3894

Continuity of the concerted practice § 3934

Participation of the various applicants concerned in the concerted practice § 3940

Duration of the participation in the infringement by applicants other than Heracles and Titan § 3973

Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 3981

Access to the file § 3985

A - Incriminating evidence § 3985

B - Exculpatory evidence § 3989

1. Case T-52/95 Valenciana v Commission § 3990

2. Case T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos v Commission § 4006

3. Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 4011

Conclusions § 4015

XII - Pleas alleging errors of assessment and infringements of Article 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, the principle of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commission classified as a single and continuous agreement the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision and found that the various parties involved had participated in that single and continuous agreement § 4016

Contested decision § 4019

Participation by the applicants concerned in the single and continuous Cembureau agreement § 4024

A - A single Cembureau agreement § 4025

1. Identity of object between the measures called in question in Articles 2 to 6 of the contested decision and the Cembureau agreement § 4026

1.1. Exchanges of information (Article 2 of the contested decision) § 4029

1.2. Franco-Italian concerted practices (contested decision, Article 3(1)) § 4033

1.3. The Hispano-Portuguese agreement (Article 3(2)) § 4043

1.4. Franco-German agreements and concerted practices (contested decision, Article 3(3)) § 4045

1.5. Elements of the single agreement relating to the ETF (Article 4 of the contested decision) § 4050

1.6. ECEC (Article 5 of the contested decision) § 4054

1.7. EPC (Article 6 of the contested decision) § 4055

1.8. Conclusions § 4057

2. The participants' awareness § 4059

2.1. Proof of participation by the various categories of applicants concerned § 4059

2.2. Links adduced as evidence in the contested decision § 4069

2.3. Proof of the participation of the indirect members of Cembureau and of Unicem and Buzzi in the Cembureau agreement through their participation in a measure implementing that agreement § 4074

2.3.1. Presence of a member of staff at the Head Delegates meetings at which the Cembureau agreement was concluded and/or confirmed § 4082

2.3.2. Other links § 4089

2.3.3. The particular case of Unicem and Buzzi § 4102

2.4. Conclusions § 4114

3. General arguments questioning the use of the concept of a 'single agreement § 4115

4. Particular circumstances showing that the various bilateral and multilateral agreements and concerted practices were not measures implementing the single Cembureau agreement § 4140

5. Particular circumstances showing that some applicants had distanced themselves from the single Cembureau agreement or that their participation in that agreement did not constitute an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty § 4165

B - Continuous nature of the single infringement § 4214

1. Contested decision § 4215

2. Starting date of the infringement § 4222

2.1. Cembureau and its direct members § 4222

2.2. Indirect members of Cembureau § 4248

2.3. Conclusions § 4267

3. Continuous nature of the infringement § 4268

3.1. CBR § 4286

3.2. Cembureau § 4290

3.3. FIC § 4294

3.4. VNC § 4298

3.5. Ciments Luxembourgeois § 4302

3.6. Dyckerhoff § 4306

3.7. SFIC § 4310

3.8. Vicat § 4314

3.9. Ciments Français § 4318

3.10. Heidelberger § 4322

3.11. Lafarge § 4326

3.12. Aalborg § 4330

3.13. BDZ § 4334

3.14. Unicem § 4338

3.15. Valenciana § 4343

3.16. BCA § 4346

3.17. Asland § 4350

3.18. Uniland § 4354

3.19. Oficemen § 4359

3.20. Irish Cement § 4363

3.21. Cimpor § 4367

3.22. SECIL § 4370

3.23. ATIC § 4373

3.24. Italcementi § 4377

3.25. Holderbank § 4382

3.26. Hornos Ibéricos § 4386

3.27. Aker § 4391

3.28. EUROC § 4395

3.29. Cementir § 4399

3.30. Blue Circle § 4403

3.31. AGCI § 4408

3.32. Halkis § 4414

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 4418

Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 4436

A - Classification of the Cembureau agreement as a single and continuous agreement § 4436

B - Participation of the various applicants in the single and continuous Cembureau agreement § 4448

Infringement of the rights of the defence when the applicants were given access to the file § 4475

A - Case T-25/95 CBR v Commission § 4479

B - Case T-30/95 FIC v Commission § 4484

C - Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission § 4486

D - Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 4498

E - Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission § 4500

F - Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission § 4502

G - Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission § 4510

H - Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission § 4512

I - Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 4514

Final conclusions § 4516

XIII - Pleas of infringements of Article 85(1) and Article 190 of the Treaty and the rights of defence in that the Commission finds that there were, within the framework of the WCC, infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that various applicants participated in them (Article 7 of the contested decision) § 4519

Preliminary observations § 4519

Protection of home markets and coordinated export of production surpluses outside the Community § 4531

System of exchange of information on individual undertakings § 4593

Effect on inter-State trade § 4604

The applicants' participation in the infringements referred to in Article 7 of the contested decision § 4618

Time bar of matters found in Article 7 of the contested decision § 4670

Access to the file § 4675

General conclusions § 4692

XIV - The plea alleging that the order in Article 8 of the contested decision is unlawful § 4694

Alternative claims seeking the cancellation or reduction of the fines § 4714

I - Plea alleging inadequate or contradictory statement of reasons in the contested decision as regards the fines § 4722

II - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as the Commission imposed a single fine for the group of infringements found in relation to the grey cement market § 4753

III - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and the principle of proportionality in the assessment of the intentional nature of the infringements § 4767

IV - Plea alleging infringement of Regulation No 2988/74 on limitation periods § 4788

V - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, and manifest errors of assessment as regards the duration of the infringement found in relation to the grey cement market § 4804

VI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the duration of the infringement found in relation to the white cement market § 4816

VII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and principles of proportionality and equal treatment as well as manifest errors of assessment in assessing the gravity of the infringement found in relation to the grey cement market § 4821

The aggravating circumstances found in recital 65, paragraph 5, of the contested decision § 4822

The mitigating circumstance found in recital 65, paragraph 6, of the contested decision § 4840

Failure to take account of certain mitigating circumstances § 4843

A - Size and influence on the market of the offending undertaking § 4843

B - Absence or minor impact of the anti-competitive effects of the infringements § 4852

C - Conduct on the market during the period in question § 4868

D - No benefit from the infringement § 4878

E - The state of the cement market during the period in question § 4887

F - Self-defence § 4894

G - Cooperation during the administrative procedure § 4902

H - Intention to comply with Community competition law § 4907

I - Novelty of the matter at issue § 4911

J - The European cement industry as world leader § 4916

K - Legal and technical barriers to intra-Community trade in cement § 4918

L - Arrival of a new competitor on the market § 4920

M - Fines not tax-deductible § 4922

N - Financial situation of the offender § 4924

VIII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and manifest errors of assessment in assessing the responsibility of individual undertakings in respect of the infringement found in relation to the grey cement market § 4927

IX - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and the principle of proportionality in assessing the responsibility of individual undertakings in respect of the infringement found in relation to the white cement market § 4990

X - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and manifest errors of assessment as regards the turnover taken into account for the purpose of calculating the fines § 5005

XI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and the principles of equity, proportionality and equal treatment, owing to the fixing of the fines in ecus and the choice of conversion rate § 5051

XII - Pleas alleging infringements of various general principles of Community law § 5059

XIII - Plea alleging infringement of rights of the defence owing to incomplete access to the Commission file during the administrative procedure § 5090

XIV - Conclusions § 5114

The claims for reimbursement of the fine, together with interest, and for reimbursement of the expenses incurred in providing a bank guarantee § 5116

Costs § 5119

1: Languages of the cases: Spanish, Danish, German, Greek, English, French, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese.