Press and Information Division

PRESS RELEASE No 16/00

15 March 2000

Judgment of the Court of First Instance 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 ¹

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE REDUCES THE FINES IMPOSED ON THE CEMENT CARTEL BY ALMOST EUR 140 MILLION

The largest competition case ever dealt with by the Court (41 undertakings or associations of undertakings in 16 European States)

By a decision of November 1994 the Commission found that there was a series of agreements and concerted practices designed to share the European markets for grey cement and white cement. According to the Commission, those agreements and concerted practices constituted a single infringement in which 42 European undertakings and associations of undertakings took part. The Commission fixed the starting date of that single infringement at 14 January 1983, the date of a meeting at which senior representatives of the European cement industry agreed on a rule of "non-transhipment to home markets" which prohibited any export of cement within Europe which might destabilise neighbouring markets. When it adopted its decision the Commission was not certain that the infringement had ceased. A total fine of approximately EUR 250 million was imposed on the addressees of the decision.

Before the Court, the undertakings and the associations of undertakings first of all complained of various infringements of their right to a fair hearing during the administrative procedure. Several applicants, which had not been present at the meeting of 14 January 1983, claimed that in the decision the Commission had taken the view that they had been represented at that meeting and had therefore participated in the agreements and concerted practices from that date, even though that approach to liability had not been indicated in the statement of objections. The Court has found that the Commission should have stated its intention to adopt the 14 January 1983 as the starting date of the infringement in regard to all the addressees of its decision. The Court has therefore determined for each individual undertaking the starting date of its participation in the infringement without taking account of the Commission's test of representation at that meeting.

Various associations of undertakings also submitted that in the statement of objections the Commission had not announced its intention to impose a fine on them. The Court considers that argument to be well founded and has therefore annulled the fines imposed on the associations of undertakings.

Almost all the addressees of the decision have complained that the Commission did not give them sufficient access to the investigation file during the administrative procedure. The Court requested the Commission to send that file to it in order that the whole file might be inspected by the parties. Two of the applicants were able to prove that the insufficient access to the file during the administrative procedure had deprived them of evidence which might have been useful to their defence. The decision has therefore been annulled with regard to them (Cedest and Rugby).

The Court has found that there was a single agreement between all the applicants that was designed to ensure non-transhipment to home markets. However, it has held that the Commission has not adequately proved the participation of some undertakings in that agreement (Buzzi, ENCI, Castle, Titan, Heracles, Nordcement, Alsen Breitenburg). In the case of all the other addressees of the decision, the Court has held that the duration of their participation in the infringement was less than found by the Commission. The Court has pointed out that the Commission was obliged to prove not only that each addressee of the decision had participated in the infringement but also to prove the duration of its participation.

As the fines were imposed according to the gravity and duration of the infringement, the Court has found it necessary to appreciably reduce the fines imposed on the undertakings whose participation in the agreement has been proved. That fact, coupled with the annulment of the fines imposed on the undertakings whose responsibility in the agreements and concerted practices has not been proved and of the fines on all the associations of undertakings, means that the total amount of the fines has been reduced to around EUR 110 million. ²

N.B.: The parties may appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Communities against this decision of the Court of First Instance. Any appeal is limited to questions of law and must be brought within two months of notification of the judgment.

Unofficial document for the use of the media, not binding on the Court of First Instance. Available in all the official languages.

For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int at about 15.00 today.

For further information please contact Mme Milagros Gallego tel. (352) 4303 3442 or fax: (352) 4303 2668.

Pictures of the sitting are available on "Europe by Satellite" - European Commission, DG X, Audiovisual Service, L-2920 Luxembourg, tel. (352) 4301 32392, fax (352) 4301 35249 or B-1049 Brussels, tel (32) 2 2962275, fax (32) 2 2965956

1 See the annex hereto for the names of the parties.

2 See the list annexed hereto for the individual amounts.