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

The Statement of Objections

The Cement Decision

- agreements between Cembureau and its members on the exchange of price information in order to facilitate the implementation of the Cembureau Agreement (Article 2(1) of the Cement Decision);

- concerted practices between Cembureau and its members on the circulation of information on prices designed to facilitate the implementation of the Cembureau Agreement (Article 2(2) of the Cement Decision);

- concerted practices between French undertakings and an Italian undertaking (Article 3(1) of the Cement Decision); an agreement concerning the Spanish and Portuguese markets (Article 3(2) of the Cement Decision); agreements and concerted practices concerning the French and German markets (Article 3(3) of the Cement Decision);

- collusion between a number of European producers in reaction to imports of Greek cement and clinker into the Member States in the mid-1980s. That collusion led to the setting-up of the European Task Force (the ETF) (Article 4(1) of the Cement Decision), the setting-up of Interciment SA (Interciment), having as its purpose the carrying-out of the persuasive and dissuasive measures against those threatening the stability of the markets (Article 4(2) of the Cement Decision) and participation in agreements and concerted practices on the adoption of measures to prevent and/or reduce imports of Greek cement and clinker into the Member States, in particular on the Italian market (Article 4(3) and (4) of the Cement Decision); and

- concerted practices within the framework of two committees, the European Cement Export Committee (ECEC) (Article 5 of the Cement Decision) and the European Export Policy Committee (EPC), relating in particular to the exchange of information on prices and to the supply and demand situation in the importing non-member countries and on the home markets and designed to prevent incursions by competitors on respective national markets in the Community.

- all the appellants in the present proceedings, with the exception of Ciments français, participated in the exchanges of information referred to in Article 2 of that decision;

- Ciments français participated in the concerted practices referred to in Article 3(1)(b) and (3)(a) of that decision;

- all the appellants in the present proceedings participated in the setting-up of the ETF referred to in Article 4(1) of that decision;

- Ciments français, Italcementi, Unicem and Cementir participated in the setting-up of Interciment, referred to in Article 4(2) of that decision;

- all the appellants in the present appeals participated in the concerted practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi SpA (Calcestruzzi) as a customer from the Greek producers referred to in Article 4(3)(a) of that decision, but only Italcementi, Unicem and Cementir participated in an agreement relating to the contracts having as their aim the prevention of imports of Greek cement by Calcestruzzi, as referred to in Article 4(3)(b) of that decision;

- all the appellants, with the exception of Ciments français, participated in the concerted practices within the framework of the ECEC, referred to in Article 5 of that decision; and

- Ciments français participated in the concerted practices within the framework of the EPC referred to in Article 6 of that decision.

- for Aalborg, ECU 4 008 000,

- for Irish Cement, ECU 3 524 000;

- for Ciments français, ECU 24 716 000;

- for Italcementi, ECU 32 492 000;

- for Unicem, ECU 11 652 000;

- for Cementir, ECU 8 248 000.

II - Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal

- the Commission to produce various documents, including the SO as notified to each undertaking or association concerned, the minutes of the hearing of that party, the List, the Box and the correspondence exchanged during the administrative procedure between the Commission and the undertaking or association concerned during the administrative procedure (the measures of 19 January to 2 February 1996);

- the Commission to authorise the applicants at first instance in question to consult the national chapters of the SO at its premises and, in regard to each of the national agreements and concerted practices, to give them access to the same national file as that sent during the administrative procedure to the addressees of the SO established in the Member State concerned (the measure of 2 October 1996);

- the applicants at first instance to identify the passages of the SO and the relevant documents which had not been sent to them during the administrative procedure and to explain in what respect the outcome of the administrative procedure might have been different if those items had been made available to them during that procedure;

- the Commission (by decision notified on 27 February 1997) to specify exactly which documents were rendered accessible to the applicants at first instance following the adoption of the measure of 2 October 1996 and to identify them on the List. It follows in that regard from the Commission's reply of 8 and 17 April 1997 that it gave them access, however, to only around a quarter of files IV/33.126 and IV/33.322 as a whole;

- the Commission, by decisions notified on 18 and 19 June 1997, to lodge at the Registry, by 30 September 1997 at the latest, the originals of all documents itemised on the List in files IV/33.126 and IV/33.322 except for documents containing business secrets or other confidential information and the Commission's internal documents. The Commission was requested to specify the nature of each internal document on the List. It was also requested to replace the confidential documents in the investigation file with non-confidential versions or non-confidential summaries;

- the 39 applicants at first instance concerned to consult, at the Registry of the Court of First Instance, the original, non-confidential versions of the documents lodged by the Commission. They were allowed to lodge a pleading specifying any document to which they had not had access during the administrative procedure which could have affected their defence and explain briefly why the outcome of the administrative procedure might have been different if the document in question had been made available to them. The Commission was allowed to lodge a response in those cases.

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

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

- annul[led] Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annul[led] Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annul[led] Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

- annul[led] Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 18 November 1983;

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

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

- dismisse[d] the remainder of the application;

- order[ed] the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- order[ed] the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

- annul[led] Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annul[led] Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that there [had been] 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 [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

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

- annul[led] Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annul[led] Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annul[led] Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

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

- dismisse[d] the remainder of the application;

- order[ed] the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- order[ed] the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

- annul[led] Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 3 April 1992;

- annul[led] Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

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

- annul[led] Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annul[led] Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

- annul[led] Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annul[led] Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

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

- dismisse[d] the remainder of the application;

- order[ed] the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- order[ed] the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

- annul[led] Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

- annul[led] Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that there [had been] 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 [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 19 March 1984;

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

- annul[led] Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 31 May 1987;

- annul[led] Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annul[led] Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

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

- dismisse[d] the remainder of the application;

- order[ed] the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- order[ed] the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

- annul[led] Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 19 March 1984 and after 3 April 1992;

- annul[led] Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that there [had been] 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 [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 19 March 1984 and after that date;

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

- annul[led] Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

- annul[led] Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

- annul[led] Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

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

- dismisse[d] the remainder of the application;

- order[ed] the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- order[ed] the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

- annul[led] Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 3 April 1992;

- annul[led] Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that there [had been] 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 [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement after 14 January 1983;

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

- annul[led] Article 4(1) and (2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as they concern[ed] the applicant;

- annul[led] Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it [found] that the applicant [had] participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986;

- annul[led] Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concern[ed] the applicant;

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

- dismisse[d] the remainder of the application;

- order[ed] the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the Commission;

- order[ed] the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.

III - Forms of order sought in the appeals

- primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far is it concerns Aalborg, in so far as it upholds the Cement Decision in regard to it, and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh adjudication;

- in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part in so far as it concerns Aalborg, in so far as it confirms the Cement Decision in regard to it, and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh adjudication;

- primarily, annul the fine in its entirety and, in the alternative, annul it in part; and

- order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the present case by Aalborg before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

- set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part in so far as it confirms the Cement Decision in regard to Irish Cement;

- in the alternative, declare the Cement Decision void and/or reduce the fine imposed on Irish Cement; and

- order the Commission to pay the costs.

- set aside the judgment under appeal in part, on the basis of Article 225 EC and Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice;

- annul the Cement Decision on the basis of Article 230 EC;

- in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on Ciments français on the basis of Article 229 EC and Article 17 of Regulation No 17; and

- order the Commission to pay the costs.

- primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

- in the alternative, set that judgment aside in part;

- annul the Cement Decision in part, in so far as the Court should allow the appeal against that judgment;

- reduce the fine to such amount as the Court should deem appropriate;

- refer the case back to the Court of First Instance should the Court consider that the state of the matter does not allow it, in whole or in part, to give final judgment in the matter; and

- order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

- primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the Cement Decision and order the Commission to pay the costs;

- in the alternative, should the Court decide not to set aside the judgment under appeal, reduce the penalty imposed on Unicem; and

- in any event, adopt such other provision as may be necessary or as the Court may consider appropriate or just.

- primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part and, consequently, annul the Cement Decision in whole or in part and annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on Cementir;

- in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for an adjudication on the substance in the light of the guidance which the Court will provide to it; and

- order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

- as regards the appeal introduced by Ciments français, declare the application for annulment of the Cement Decision inadmissible and dismiss the remainder of the action as unfounded; and, in the alternative, dismiss the action as unfounded in its entirety;

- as regards the other appeals, dismiss them as inadmissible in so far as the pleas put forward cannot be examined in an appeal and, for the remainder, dismiss them as unfounded; and

- order all the appellants to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in connection with these appeals.

IV - Procedure before the Court of Justice and pleas in law

- breach of the rights of defence owing to the lack of access to documents liable to contain exculpatory evidence;

- incorrect imputation of liability for the infringements of Article 85 of the Treaty;

- breach of the basic principles applicable to the setting of fines;

- infringement of Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OJ 1974 L 319, p. 1).

- lack of competence of the Court of First Instance;

- a procedural defect;

- infringement of Community law and manifest errors of assessment as regards the procedural rules protecting the rights of the defence and the relevance of certain documentary evidence;

- a failure to state reasons and a failure to respond to the appellant's arguments.

- an error of assessment in respect of the turnover used in calculating the amount of the fine imposed on Ciments français;

- breach of the principle of proportionality in relation to the amount of that fine.

- breach of the rights of the defence owing to incomplete access to the documents in the investigation file;

- breach of the rights of the defence, insufficient reasoning and inconsistency with an earlier decision in respect of the dropping of the national complaints;

- incorrect application of Community law and a contradiction in the reasoning as regards the assessment of the unlawful nature of the agreement relating to the agreements signed with Calcestruzzi in 1987;

- breach of the principles of fairness, proportionality and non-discrimination as regards the intangibility of the fine;

- breach of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and inadequate reasoning as regards the assessment of the gravity of the infringement found in Italcementi's case;

- breach of that provision as regards the assessment of the duration of the infringement found in Italcementi's case.

- breach of the rights of the defence, misapplication of the legal provisions and incorrect and contradictory reasoning in respect of:

- the refusal to authorise access to the SO and to the documents in the investigation file;

- the dropping of the national objections;

- the contracts concluded between Calcestruzzi and the Italian producers;

- Unicem's participation in the ETF;

- the link between the ETF and the Cembureau Agreement.

- an alleged breach of the principle ne bis in idem and of the principle of equal treatment;

- an alleged breach of the right of non-self-incrimination;

- a manifest error in assessing probative documents;

- an error of law and insufficient reasoning concerning the designation of Unicem as a direct member of Cembureau;

- an alleged infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC), of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of proportionality as regards:

- the imposition of a single fine for all the infringements established on the market for grey cement;

- the assessment of liability in the infringement relating to participation in the Cembureau Agreement;

- the calculation of the duration of the infringement.

- breach of the rights of the defence as regards access to the investigation file;

- error of law, defective reasoning and breach of the rights of the defence as regards:

- the existence of the Cembureau agreement;

- the exchanges of price information;

- the measures referred to in Article 4(3) and (4) of the Cement Decision;

- an error of law and defective reasoning as regards the concept of a single and continuous agreement;

- an error of law and an incorrect assessment of the criteria for the calculation of the penalty imposed on Cementir.

V - The review exercised by the Court in the present appeals

The role of the Court in an appeal

The legal and factual context of the review of anti-competitive practices and agreements

The criteria material to the setting of the fine

Findings of the Court

2. Pleas concerning the Court of First Instance's assessment of the usefulness of the documents in the defence of the undertakings concerned

Arguments of the parties

- The objective link criterion

- The criterion relating to the impact of the non-disclosure of documents

- The relevance of direct documentary evidence

Findings of the Court

3. The various pleas relating to the application by the Court of First Instance to the facts of the present case of the criteria concerning the probative value of the documents that were not disclosed

Arguments of the parties

- The evidence relating to the existence of the Cembureau Agreement (the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the Cement Decision)

- The evidence relating to the price information exchanges (the infringements referred to in Article 2 of the Cement Decision)

- The evidence relating to the meeting at which the ETF was set up (the infringement referred to in Article 4(1) of the Cement Decision)

- The evidence relating to the agreements with Calcestruzzi (the infringement referred to in Article 4(3) of the Cement Decision)

- the minutes of the meeting of 23 July 1986 of the board of directors of Heracles General Cement Company (Heracles) (documents 33.126/19878 to 19880), which, according to Cementir, show that Heracles and Titan Cement company SA (Titan) had concluded agreements between them in order to be able to make joint supplies in Italy and confirm the substance of its argument that, in the light of the significant volume of Calcestruzzi's demand, Cementir had to participate in an agreement involving other producers and signed solely for commercial reasons;

- documents 33.126/2945 to 2951, 2934, 2935, 3065 to 3068 and 2954 to 2966, which, according to Cementir, show that certain Italian producers had taken local measures to protect their market against imports from Greece, but which had nothing to do with the Cembureau agreement;

- documents 33.126/19369 to 19377, 19387, 19389 and 19412 and also 20275 to 20282, 20294, 19889, 19781, 20124 to 20137, 20140 to 20156, 19433, 20001, 19401 and 19410, which, according to Cementir, support its argument that the agreements with Calcestruzzi had no damaging effect on the trade in cement between Italy and Greece, thus showing the great extent to which Greek imports had penetrated the Italian market.

- The evidence relating to the agreement between Italian cement producers (the infringement referred to in Article 4(3)(b) of the Cement Decision)

Findings of the Court

- The evidence relating to the existence of the Cembureau Agreement

- The evidence relating to the price information exchanges

- The evidence relating to the meeting of 9 September 1986

- The evidence relating to the agreements with Calcestruzzi

- The evidence relating to the agreements between Italian cement producers

4. Pleas alleging breach of the rights of defence as regards the decision to drop the national objections

Arguments of Italcementi

Findings of the Court

5. The plea relating to the right to cross-examine the authors of the documents relied on by the Commission

Arguments of Irish Cement

Findings of the Court

6. The plea alleging breach of the right not to give self-incriminating evidence

Arguments of Buzzi Unicem

Findings of the Court

B - The substantive pleas

1. Pleas alleging errors of law, flawed reasoning and distortion of evidence as regards the existence of the Cembureau Agreement (the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the Cement Decision)

Arguments of the parties

- The legal characterisation of the evidence as [direct] documentary evidence

- The statement of Mr Kalogeropoulos

- The Blue Circle memoranda

- The admission by Cembureau

- The letters convening the meeting of 14 January 1983

- The Chairman's draft introductory statement for the meeting of 14 January 1983

- The meetings of 19 March and 7 November 1984

- Other exculpatory evidence

Findings of the Court

2. Pleas relating to alleged errors of law, flawed reasoning and distortion of evidence as regards the single and continuous nature of the Cembureau Agreement

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

3. Pleas alleging errors of law, flawed reasoning and infringement of the rights of the defence as regards the exchanges of price information

Arguments of the parties

- The anti-competitive object of the exchanges of price information

- the selling prices of cement were easily accessible to the public and, as regards the Danish market, they were even published;

- most frequently, prices were subject to public control measures, such as approval by the Danish Monopoltilsyn;

- the gathering of data on prices charged was traditionally part of the tasks of a trade association and, owing to its limited scope, had no significance from the point of view of competition; and

- information on prices had always been sent by Cembureau to its members after the prices communicated had become applicable at the time of an annual update.

- The error in the Italian version of the judgment under appeal

- The alleged unequal treatment

- The characterisation of the exchanges as an implementing measure

- the Court of First Instance made a logical error when it concluded that the references to national prices in the introductory statement of the Chairman of the meeting of 14 January 1983 should be compared with the exchange of data which took place at that meeting. That is not sufficient reason to regard as unlawful a system of data exchange which was set up well before that meeting.

- contrary to the Court of First Instance's assertion at paragraphs 1645 and 1646 of the judgment under appeal, the document relating to average national prices which, according to the Court of First Instance, illustrated the exchange of price information between the members of Cembureau was distributed at the meeting of 30 Mary 1983, in which Cementir did not participate, nor at the meeting of 14 January 1983. That document is therefore of no relevance for the purpose of establishing an infringement by Cementir.

- The duration of the exchanges

Findings of the Court

4. Pleas alleging errors of law, flawed reasoning, distortion of evidence and breach of the rights of the defence as regards the activities within the framework of the ETF and the agreements and practices intended to protect the Italian market

Arguments of the parties

- Participation in the setting-up of the ETF

- The characterisation of the setting-up of the ETF as a single agreement relating to the ETF and as a measure taken to implement the Cembureau Agreement

- Duration of the infringement relating to the setting-up of the ETF

- Participation in the infringement relating to the setting-up of the ETF

- the minutes of the meeting of 9 September 1986 are of no relevance to Cementir, since it did not participate in that meeting;

- Titan's letter of 2 September 1988 to its lawyers in London (document 33.126/19196) does not in any way show that Cementir's conduct towards Calcestruzzi was linked with a concerted practice with other European producers within the framework of the ETF, a body to which Cementir did not belong, as the Court of First Instance acknowledged;

- neither the meeting of 11 February 1987 nor the meeting of 17 March 1987 concerned Cementir, since it did not participate in any meetings of the ETF;

- the two telexes sent to Titan confirming the suspension of deliveries of cement agreed between Titan and Calcestruzzi does not show that Cementir or any other companies concluded a trade agreement with Calcestruzzi in the context of the implementation of a definitive anti-competitive plan at European level.

- The characterisation of the agreements with Calcestruzzi as a single agreement relating to the ETF and as measures taken to implement the Cembureau Agreement

- The alleged error in the legal analysis of the unlawful nature of the agreements with Calcestruzzi

- The plea relating to the principle ne bis in idem

- The alleged distortion of the evidence

- The duration of the infringement referred to in Article 4(3)(b) of the Cement Decision

Findings of the Court

C - The attribution of responsibility

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

D - The fines

1. The determination of the fines in the Cement Decision

2. Pleas relating to the criteria for setting the fines and also to the principles of equality and proportionality

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

3. The part of Cementir's sixth plea concerning the calculation of turnover

Arguments of Cementir

Findings of the Court

4. The second plea of Ciments français, concerning its Belgian subsidiary

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

5. Other pleas

Costs