Language of document : ECLI:EU:T:2000:77

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 andcontinuous infringement - General agreement and measures of implementation- Liability for an infringement - Evidence of participation in the generalagreement and measures of implementation - Links between the generalagreement and the measures of implementation as regards objects andparticipants - 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 inBrussels, represented by Michel Waelbroeck, Alexandre Vandencasteele, DenisWaelbroeck and, initially, also by Olivier Speltdoorn, of the Brussels Bar, with anaddress for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 RueMathias Hardt,

T-26/95

Cembureau - Association Européenne du Ciment, an association constituted underBelgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Julian Ellison, Solicitor, andMark Clough, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at theChambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-30/95

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

T-31/95

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

T-32/95

Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC), an association constituted underNetherlands law, established in 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, represented by PietA. 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 AlexSchmitt, 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 Chambersof Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-35/95

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

T-36/95

Syndicat National de l'Industrie Cimentière (SFIC), an association constitutedunder French law, established in Paris, represented by Édouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg atthe 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, withan address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58Rue 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, ofthe Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers ofJacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-39/95

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

T-42/95

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

T-43/95

Lafarge Coppée SA, a company incorporated under French law, established inParis, represented by Henry Lesguillons, of the Paris Bar, with an address forservice 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 inAalborg, Denmark, represented by Karen Dyekjær-Hansen and Katja Hoegh,Copenhagen, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AloyseMay, 31 Grand-Rue,

T-45/95

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

T-48/95

Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV, a registered associationconstituted under German law, established in Cologne, Germany, represented byJochen Burrichter, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service inLuxembourg 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 forservice 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 CasaleMonferrato, 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 anaddress for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of René Faltz, 6 Rue HeinrichHeine,

T-52/95

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

T-53/95

The Rugby Group plc, a company incorporated under English law, established inRugby, United Kingdom, represented by Lynda Martin Alegi, Solicitor, London,and Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service inLuxembourg 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 ParkerQC, Robert Tudway and Dorcas Rogers, Solicitors, London, subsequently solely byKenneth Parker QC and Robert Tudway, with an address for service inLuxembourg 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 VenturaArasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d'Auderghem,Brussels,

T-56/95

Castle Cement Ltd, a company incorporated under English law, established inBirmingham, United Kingdom, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, John Cook,Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address for service inLuxembourg 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 IriniGortsila, of the Athens Bar, and Sebastian Farr and Ciaran Walker, Solicitors, withan address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jos Stoffel, 8 Rue WillyGoergen,

T-58/95

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

T-59/95

Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (Oficemen), an associationconstituted under Spanish law, established in Madrid, represented initially by JaimeFolguera Crespo and Ramón Vidal Puig, of the Madrid Bar, subsequently solely byFolguera Crespo, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers ofAlex 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 forservice in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz & Associés, 6 Rue HeinrichHeine,

T-61/95

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

T-63/95

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

T-64/95

Titan Cement Company SA, a company incorporated under Greek law, establishedin 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 atthe Chambers of Tom Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

T-65/95

Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, a company incorporated underItalian law, established in Bergamo, Italy, represented by André Faures, of theBrussels Bar, Cesare Lanciani, of the Milan Bar, Alberto Predieri, of the FlorenceBar, Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the BolognaBar, and Giulio Cesare Rizza, of the Syracuse Bar, with an address for service inLuxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place WinstonChurchill,

T-68/95

Holderbank Financière Glarus AG, a company incorporated under Swiss law,established in Jona, Switzerland, represented by Cornelis Canenbley and MichaelEsser-Wellié, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourgat 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, LuisSuaréz de Lezo Mantilla, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service inLuxembourg 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 TrevorSoames, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers ofArendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,

T-71/95

Scancem (publ) AB, formerly EUROC AB, a company incorporated under Swedishlaw, established in Malmö, Sweden, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC, JohnCook, Geert Goeteyn and Trevor Soames, Solicitors, with an address for service inLuxembourg 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 ofAlain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er,

T-88/95

Blue Circle Industries plc, a company incorporated under English law, establishedin London, represented initially by Jeremy Lever QC, Nicholas Green and JessicaSimor, 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 MariaGolfinopoulou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg atthe Chambers of Tom Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

and

T-104/95

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

applicants,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal (in all thecases), 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 CasesT-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 CasesT-25/95 and T-30/95), Bertrand Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and Brussels(in Case T-34/95), Alexander Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt, Frankfurt am Main andBrussels (in Cases T-35/95 and T-42/95), Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar (inCases T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95 and T-43/95), Alberto Dal Ferro, of theVicenza Bar (in Cases T-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), Renzo MariaMorresi, of the Bologna Bar (in Cases T-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), JoséRivas Andrés, of the Madrid Bar (in Cases T-52/95, T-55/95, T-58/95, T-59/95 andT-69/95), David Lloyd Jones, Barrister (in Cases T-54/95 and T-88/95), ScottCrosby, 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 LisbonBar (in Cases T-61/95, T-62/95 and T-63/95), Rainer M. Bierwagen, of the BrusselsBar (in Case T-68/95), Mark Brealey, Barrister (in Case T-88/95), and AlkiviadisOikonomou, 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 LegalService, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of theEC 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, ExtendedComposition),

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

Registrar: I. Maselis, Legal Secretary,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearings which tookplace on 16 September 1998 (in Cases T-26/95, T-36/95, T-37/95 and T-38/95), 18September 1998 (in Cases T-39/95, T-43/95, T-70/95 and T-71/95), 23 September1998 (in Cases T-53/95, T-54/95, T-56/95 and T-88/95), 25 September 1998 (inCases T-57/95, T-64/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95), 30 September 1998 (in CasesT-50/95, T-51/95, T-65/95 and T-87/95), 2 October 1998 (T-61/95, T-62/95 andT-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 CasesT-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 andT-68/95),

gives the following

Judgment


On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, ExtendedComposition),

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 1994relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126and 33.322 - Cement) in so far as it finds that the applicant participatedin 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 theapplicant participated in the infringement before 9 June 1986 and after 31May 1987;

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 vCommission:

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

-    annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that there wereagreements 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 infringementafter 19 March 1984;

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

-    annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

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

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

-    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 theapplicant;

-    orders the Commission to pay the costs.

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

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

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

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

-    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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

-    annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarlandmarket and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in aninfringement of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) after12 August 1987;

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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) vCommission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(2) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 11 May 1983 and after 23 April1986;

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 concernthe 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 17 February 1989 and in so far as itfinds that the applicant implemented the Cembureau agreement byparticipating 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 theapplicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarlandmarket and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in aninfringement 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 theapplicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

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

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 10 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 12 August 1987;

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 19 May 1989;

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

-    annuls Article 3(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant participated in an agreement on the sharing of the Saarlandmarket and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in aninfringement 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 theapplicant participated in the infringement after 31 May 1987;

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

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

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 theapplicant;

-    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 theapplicant;

-    orders the Commission to pay the costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 3 April1992;

-    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 asit finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau -The European Cement Association and its members related, so far asconcerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries'producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far asconcerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country'sproducer and in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in theinfringement before 9 September 1986;

-    annuls Article 4(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant participated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 andafter 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 theapplicant 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 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 theapplicant participated in a concerted practice with Lafarge Coppée SAinvolving the restriction of their autonomy of conduct with regard toproduction sources;

-    annuls Article 3(1)(c) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 13 May 1987;

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 10 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 concernthe 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

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

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

-    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 thecosts 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 28 May 1986 and after 31 May1987;

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 thecosts 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 theyconcern 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 faras 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 9 September 1986 and after 7November 1988;

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated 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 asit finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau -The European Cement Association and its members related, so far asconcerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries'producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far asconcerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country'sproducer;

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

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

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 24 April 1989;

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 24 April 1989;

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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) vCommission:

-    annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that the applicantparticipated 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 asit finds that the periodic circulation of information between Cembureau -The European Cement Association and its members related, so far asconcerns the Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries'producers' minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry and, so far asconcerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of rebates, of that country'sproducer;

-    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 94/815in 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 19 March 1984 and after 3 April1992;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 19 May 1989;

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

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

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 7 November 1988;

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

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 3 April 1992;

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

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

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

-    annuls Article 4(3)(a) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds that theapplicant 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 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 18 November 1983 and after 7November 1988;

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

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

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

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred 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 applicantparticipated in the infringement after 31 December 1988;

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

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

-    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 applicantparticipated in the infringement before 18 November 1983 and after 1September 1986;

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

-    fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 9 ofDecision 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 costsincurred by the Commission;

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

Lindh
García-Valdecasas
Lenaerts
        Azizi                                Jaeger

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 March 2000.

H. Jung

P. Lindh
Registrar
President
Summary
    The facts

    Procedure

    Forms of order sought

    The claim for annulment of the decision of 23 September 1993 inasmuch as it terminatedthe international part of the proceeding initiated against 12 German undertakings andsix Spanish undertakings

    The claim for annulment of the contested decision

        I - The pleas alleging various infringements of essential procedural requirementsduring the administrative procedure

            The first plea: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle ofequal treatment in that the whole of the SO and the documents relatingthereto were not accessible during the administrative procedure

                A - Preliminary observations

                B - The notification of part of the SO

                    1. The inseparability of the SO and the applicants' right of access to thewhole of it

                    2. The existence of an inseparable link between the national andinternational agreements and concerted practices and theapplicants' right of access to the whole of the SO

                    3. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

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

                    1. Organisation of access to the file during the administrativeprocedure

                    1.1 Irregularities in the organisation of access to the file in regard toaccessible documents

                    1.2 Organisation of access to the file was irregular because theapplicants did not have access to certain documents

                    2. The various measures of organisation of procedure ordered by theCourt

                    2.1 Preliminary observations

                    2.2 The various measures ordered

                    2.3.    The conditions under which the Commission was to perform themeasures of organisation of procedure

                    2.3.1. The measure of 19 January to 2 February 1996

                    2.3.2. The measure of 2 October 1996

                    2.3.3. The measure of 18 and 19 June 1997

                    2.3.4. Interim findings

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

                    3.    Analytical framework for assessing an argument alleginginfringement of the rights of the defence because of theinaccessibility of allegedly exculpatory evidence during theadministrative procedure

                    4.    Application of the principles to the present case

                    5.    General arguments relating to infringement of the rights of defenceduring the administrative procedure

                    6.    Conclusions

                D - The use in the contested decision of incriminating documents notdisclosed to the applicants during the administrative procedure or notidentified in the SO

                    1.    Preliminary observations

                    2. Documents neither cited nor mentioned in the contested decision

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

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

                    5. Documents used in the contested decision in the context of aninfringement attributed to the applicant who is relying on them

                    6.    Conclusions

                E - The failure to send to the applicants documents which were not in theinvestigation file

                    1.    Preliminary observations

                    2.    Replies to the SO by other addressees

                    2.1    Use of replies to the SO as incriminating evidence

                    2.2    Exculpatory evidence which might have been contained in thereplies to the SO

                    3.    Records of the hearings relating to the national agreements andconcerted practices

                    4.    The Commission's file on the notification of the Belgian-DutchBasing point system

                    5.    The Commission's file on State aid granted by the HellenicRepublic and on the inter-governmental agreement betweenGreece and the United Kingdom

                    6.    Internal notes of the Commission not included in the investigationfile

                    7.    The Commission's statements in defence

                    8.    Conclusions

    The second, third and fourth pleas: infringements of the rights of the defence, of theprinciple of equal treatment and of Article 190 of the Treaty as a result of theCommission's abandonment of the national objections and, as against someundertakings, of the international objections

                A - The dropping of the national objections

                B - The abandonment of the international objections as against someundertakings

            The fifth plea: procedural irregularity by the Commission in dropping someinternational objections as against Irish Cement

            The sixth plea: infringement of the rights of the defence resulting from theincomplete and imprecise nature of the SO

                A - Preliminary observations

                B - The allegedly incomplete nature of the SO

                    1.    The alleged failure by the Commission to state in the SO that itintended to fine trade associations

                    2.    The method of dealing with the CBS agreement

                    3.    The alleged failure to explain the Commission's territorialjurisdiction

                    4.    The alleged failure to analyse the market and to precisely definethe relevant markets

                C - The alleged lack of precision in the SO as to the participation of certainapplicants in various objections raised in the SO

                    1.    Participation of the applicants concerned in the infringementconstituted by the Cembureau agreement and the duration of thatinfringement

                    1.1.    Participation in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of thecontested decision

                    1.1.1.    Addressees of the SO which are members of Cembureau

                    1.1.2.    Addressees which are not direct members of Cembureau orregarded in the SO as not being direct members

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

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

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

                    1.1.3.    Interim conclusions

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

                    1.3.    Duration of participation in the infringement referred to inArticle 1 of the contested decision

                    1.4.    Conclusions

                    2.    Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in theexchanges of information on prices and the duration of thatinfringement

                    3.    Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in thebilateral and multilateral agreements referred to in Article 3 of thecontested decision

                    4.    Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in thesetting-up of the ETF and in the measures adopted in theframework thereof, referred to in Article 4 of the contesteddecision, and as regards the duration of those infringements

                    5.    Precision of the SO as regards the applicants' participation in theconcerted practices in the framework of the export committeesreferred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision, and asregards the duration of those infringements

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

            The eighth plea: infringement of the rights of the defence resulting frommistranslation and misquotation of certain documents

            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 tothe SO

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

                A - Preliminary remarks

                B - The first part: infringement of the rights of the defence and ofArticle 19(1) of Regulation No 17 and Article 7(1) of Regulation No99/63

                    1.    The Hearing Officer's programme for the hearings

                    2.    Alleged irregularities during the hearings concerning theinternational objections

                    3.    Alleged irregularities at the hearings concerning the nationalobjections

                    4.    Other irregularities during the hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

            The 15th plea: infringement of the right of the parties not to give evidenceagainst themselves

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

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

            The 21st plea: infringement of the principle of collegiate responsibility when thecontested decision was adopted

            The 22nd plea: improper authentication and notification of the contesteddecision

            II The plea alleging misuse of powers

        III - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, theprinciple of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commissionfound in Article 1 of the contested decision that there had been an agreementcontrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants concernedhad participated in it

            Preliminary observations

            The infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision

            Definition of the relevant market

                A - The relevant product market

                B - The relevant geographical market

                C - Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty

            Consistency between the SO and the contested decision

            The existence of the Cembureau agreement

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

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

                    1.1. Internal Blue Circle memoranda

                    1.2. Statement by Mr Kalogeropoulos at the Heracles Board Meetingheld on 25 June 1986

                    1.3. Admission by Cembureau

                    1.4. Conclusions

                    2. Conclusion of the Cembureau agreement at the Head Delegatesmeeting held on 14 January 1983 and confirmation of thatagreement at the Head Delegates meetings held on 19 March and7 November 1984

                    2.1. The competence of the Head Delegates to conclude the Cembureauagreement

                    2.2. Conclusion of the Cembureau agreement at the Head Delegatesmeeting held on 14 January 1983

                    2.1 Letter convening the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January 1983

                    2.2.2. Amendments to the agenda for the Head Delegates meeting heldon 14 January 1983.

                    2.2.3. Content of the documents relating to the conduct of the HeadDelegates meeting on 14 January 1983

                    2.2.4. Conclusions regarding the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January1983

                    2.3. Confirmation of the Cembureau agreement at the meeting of HeadDelegates on 19 March 1984

                    2.4. Confirmation of the Cembureau agreement at the meeting of HeadDelegates on 7 November 1984

                    2.5. Failure to take other Head Delegates meetings into consideration

                    2.6. General arguments relating to the evidential value of the documentsreferred to in recitals 18 and 19 of the contested decision

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

                    2.8. Characterisation as an agreement within the meaning of Article85(1) of the Treaty

                    2.9. Object and nature of the Cembureau agreement

                    3. The Cembureau agreement as an infringement of the Treaty:restriction of competition and effects on trade between MemberStates

                    4. Conclusions

                B - Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty

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

                    1. Incriminating evidence

                    2. Exculpatory evidence

                    2.1. Arguments raised by several applicants

                    2.2. Case T-25/95 CBR v Commission

                    2.3. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission

                    2.4. Case T-30/95 FIC v Commission

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

                    2.6. Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission

                    2.7. Case T-36/95 SFIC v Commission

                    2.8. Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission

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

                    2.10. Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission

                    2.11. Case T-43/95 Lafarge v Commission

                    2.12. Case T-44/95 Aalborg v Commission

                    2.13. Case T-48/95 BDZ v Commission

                    2.14. Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission

                    2.15. Case T-51/95 Buzzi v Commission

                    2.16. Case T-57/95 Heracles v Commission

                    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

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

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

                    2.20. Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission

                    2.21. Case T-68/95 Holderbank v Commission

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

                    2.23. Case T-87/95 Cementir v Commission

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

                    3.    Conclusions

            The applicants' participation in the Cembureau agreement

                A - Preliminary observations

                B - Membership of a national association that is a member of Cembureauas a criterion for attributing liability for the infringement referred to inArticle 1 of the contested decision

                C - Power of Head Delegates and associations of undertakings to concludethe Cembureau agreement

                D - The finding that both undertakings and associations were responsible forthe same infringement

                E - Participation of Cembureau and its direct members in the infringementreferred to in Article 1 of the contested decision

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

                    1.1. Succession of certain direct members of Cembureau

                    1.2. Applicants which participated in one or more meetings of the HeadDelegates

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

                    1.2.2. The parties' claims to have distanced themselves and othercircumstances relied on in order to contest their participation inthe Cembureau agreement

                    1.2.3. Alleged inadmissibility of certain documents against directmembers of Cembureau

                    1.2.4. Conclusions regarding the participation of Cembureau and itsdirect members, other than Unicem, in the infringement referredto in Article 1 of the contested decision

                    1.3. Situation of Unicem, a direct member of Cembureau which did notparticipate in any of the Head Delegates meetings

                    2. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

                    3. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty

                    4. Infringement of the rights of the defence when access was granted tothe file

                    4.1. Incriminating evidence

                    4.2. Exculpatory evidence

                    4.2.1. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission

                    4.2.2. Case T-87/95 Cementir v Commission

                F - Participation of Unicem, of the indirect members of Cembureau and ofBuzzi in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contesteddecision

                G - Conclusions

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

            Preliminary observations

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

                A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision

                B - The existence of agreements on exchanges of price information duringthe Cembureau Head Delegates and Executive Committee meetings

                    1.    Cembureau Head Delegates meetings.

                    2.    Cembureau Executive Committee meetings.

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

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

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

                A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision

                B - Identification of the information referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of thecontested decision

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

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

                E - The duration of the infringement referred to in Article 2(2) of thecontested decision

            Access to the file

            Conclusions

        V - The pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and of the rightsof the defence in that the Commission finds the existence of three Franco-Italianconcerted practices which infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that theapplicants in question participated in them (Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of thecontested decision)

            Introduction

            Concerted practice between Lafarge and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(a) of thecontested decision

                A - Introduction

                B - Correspondence between the Statement of Objections (SO) and thecontested decision

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

                D - Duration of the infringement

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

                A - Introduction

                B - Whether there was an anti-competitive concerted practice betweenCiments Français and Buzzi

                C - Duration of the infringement

            Concerted practice between Vicat and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(c) of thecontested decision

                A - Introduction

                B - Existence of an anti-competitive concerted practice between Vicat andBuzzi

                C - The duration of the infringement

            Access to the file

                A - Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission

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

                C - Case T-51/95 Buzzi v Commission

            Conclusions

        VI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the principle ofequal treatment and rights of the defence in that the Commission found thatthere was a Hispano-Portuguese agreement which infringed Article 85(1)of theTreaty and that various applicants participated in it (contested decision, Article3(2))

            Introduction

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

                A - The Commission's analysis

                B - Agreement between Oficemen, Cimpor and SECIL on the monitoringof cement movements between Spain and Portugal and onnon-transhipment to their respective home markets

                    1. Conclusion of the agreement

                    2. Implementation of the agreement

                    2.1 Meetings held between Oficemen, Cimpor and SECIL

                    2.2 Cimpor's refusal to sell

                    2.3. Conclusions

                    3. Specific circumstances ruling out the existence of an agreement

                    4. SECIL's special position

                    5. Conclusion

                C - Unlawful nature of the applicants' conduct

                D - Duration of the infringement

            Breach of the principle of equal treatment

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

                A - Incriminating documents

                B - Exculpatory documents

                    1. Case T-59/95 Oficemen v Commission

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

            Conclusion

        VII - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, theprinciple of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commissionfinds that there was a Franco-German agreement and concerted practice contraryto Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that various applicants participated therein(contested decision, Article 3(3)(a))

            Preliminary observations

            Agreement to share the Saarland market

            Concerted practices between various French and German producers andassociations between 1982 and 1984

                A - Talks between SFIC and BDZ

                B - Pressure exerted on Cedest by SFIC and the other French producersconcerned

                C - Concerted action between Cedest, Dyckerhoff and Heidelberger

                D - Concerted action between Lafarge and Dyckerhoff

                E - Concerted action by Dyckerhoff and Ciments Français

            General regulation of cement supplies between France and Germany

                A - Conclusion of an agreement in 1984

                B - Pursuit of the agreement after 1986

            Duration of the participation of certain parties in the infringement referred toin Article 3(3)(a)

            Access to the file

            Conclusion

        VIII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and of the rightsof the defence in that the Commission finds the existence of a concerted practicebetween SFIC and BDZ contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty (contesteddecision, Article 3(3)(b))

            Concerted practice between SFIC and BDZ

            Access to the file

        IX - Pleas alleging infringement of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, of theprinciple of equal treatment, of the rights of the defence, and abuse of processand misuse of powers in that the Commission finds that there were agreementsand concerted practices within the framework of the ETF contrary to Article85(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))

            Preliminary observations

            The agreement relating to the setting-up of the ETF (contested decision, Article4(1))

                A -    Consistency between the SO and the contested decision

                B - Unlawful nature of the agreement setting up the ETF

                C - Participation, in the agreement setting up the ETF, of the applicantsnamed in Article 4(1) of the contested decision

                    1.    Preliminary observations

                    2.    CBR

                    3.    Cembureau

                    4.    Dyckerhoff

                    5.    SFIC

                    6.    Ciments Français

                    7.    Heidelberger

                    8.    Lafarge

                    9.    Aalborg

                    10.    BDZ

                    11.    Unicem

                    12.    Asland

                    13.    Uniland

                    14.    Oficemen

                    15.    Irish Cement

                    16.    Italcementi

                    17.    Aker and EUROC

                    18.    Cementir

                D - Duration of the infringement found in Article 4(1) of the contesteddecision

                E - Access to the file

                    1. Preliminary observations

                    2. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission

                    3. Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission

                    4. Case T-36/95 SFIC v Commission

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

                    6. Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission

                    7. Case T-43/95 Lafarge v Commission

                    8. Case T-44/95 Aalborg v Commission

                    9. Case T-48/95 BDZ v Commission

                    10. Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission

                    11. Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission

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

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

                    14. Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission

                    15. Case T-68/95 Holderbank v Commission

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

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

            Agreement on the setting-up of the Joint Trading Company, Interciment (Article4(2) of the contested decision)

                A - Introduction

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

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

                    1.    Preliminary observations

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

                    3.    SFIC, BDZ and Oficemen

                    4.    Ciments Français

                    5.    Heidelberger

                    6.    Unicem

                    7.    Asland

                    8.    Uniland

                    9.    Cementir

                D - The duration of the infringement found in Article 4(2) of the contesteddecision

                E - Access to the file

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

                A - Concerted practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi from the Greekproducers, and from Titan in particular (contested decision, Article4(3)(a)).

                    1. Existence of concerted practices

                    2. The applicants' participation in the concerted practices

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

                    2.2. Ciments Français

                    2.3. Heidelberger

                    2.4. Lafarge

                    2.5. BDZ and Oficemen

                    2.6. Unicem

                    2.7. Asland

                    2.8. Italcementi

                    2.9. Holderbank

                    2.10. Aker and EUROC

                    2.11. Cementir

                    2.12. Blue Circle

                    3. The duration of the infringement

                    4. Access to the file

                B - Agreement concerning the contracts and agreements signed in April1987 with Calcestruzzi (contested decision, Article 4(3)(b))

                    1. Existence of the infringement

                    2. Access to the file

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

                A - Concerted practice referred to in Article 4(4)(a) of the contesteddecision

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

                    1. Agreement between Blue Circle and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(b) of the contested decision

                    2. Agreement between Holderbank and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(c) of the contested decision

                    3. Agreement between Holderbank and Heracles referred to inArticle 4(4)(d) of the contested decision

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

                    5. Agreement between Lafarge and Heracles referred to inArticle 4(4)(f) of the contested decision

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

                    7. Agreement between Aker, EUROC and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(h) of the contested decision

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

                A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision

                B - The single and continuous nature of the infringement referred to inArticle 4 of the contested decision

                C - Participation in the single agreement relating to the ETF

                    1. CBR

                    2. Cembureau

                    3. Ciments Français

                    4. Unicem

                    5. Uniland

                    6. Italcementi

                    7. Cementir

                D - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

            Conclusions

        X - The pleas of infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty and of therights of the defence in that the Commission finds that there were concertedpractices within the framework of the ECEC contrary to Article 85(1) of theTreaty and that the various applicants concerned participated in them (Article5 of the contested decision)

            Preliminary observations

            Contested decision

            The unlawful nature of the activities of the ECEC referred to in Article 5 of thecontested decision

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

                B - Links between the ECEC and the EPC

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

            Conclusions

        XI - Pleas of infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty and of the rightsof the defence in that the Commission finds that there was a concerted practicewithin 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 contesteddecision)

            Preliminary observations

            Contested decision

            Concerted practice designed to prevent incursions by competitors on respectivehome markets within the Community

                A - Links between the EPC and Cembureau

                B - Ciments Français internal memos

                C - Documents issuing from the EPC structure showing that the membersof that committee had themselves established a link between domesticmarkets and the EPC's activities

            Continuity of the concerted practice

            Participation of the various applicants concerned in the concerted practice

            Duration of the participation in the infringement by applicants other thanHeracles and Titan

            Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty

            Access to the file

                A - Incriminating evidence

                B - Exculpatory evidence

                    1. Case T-52/95 Valenciana v Commission

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

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

            Conclusions

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

            Contested decision

            Participation by the applicants concerned in the single and continuousCembureau agreement

                A - A single Cembureau agreement

                    1. Identity of object between the measures called in question in Articles2 to 6 of the contested decision and the Cembureau agreement

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

                    1.2. Franco-Italian concerted practices (contested decision, Article3(1))

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

                    1.4.    Franco-German agreements and concerted practices (contesteddecision, Article 3(3))

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

                    1.6. ECEC (Article 5 of the contested decision)

                    1.7. EPC (Article 6 of the contested decision)

                    1.8. Conclusions

                    2. The participants' awareness

                    2.1. Proof of participation by the various categories of applicantsconcerned

                    2.2. Links adduced as evidence in the contested decision

                    2.3. Proof of the participation of the indirect members of Cembureauand of Unicem and Buzzi in the Cembureau agreement throughtheir participation in a measure implementing that agreement

                    2.3.1. Presence of a member of staff at the Head Delegates meetings atwhich the Cembureau agreement was concluded and/orconfirmed

                    2.3.2. Other links

                    2.3.3. The particular case of Unicem and Buzzi

                    2.4. Conclusions

                    3.    General arguments questioning the use of the concept of a 'singleagreement‘

                    4. Particular circumstances showing that the various bilateral andmultilateral agreements and concerted practices were not measuresimplementing the single Cembureau agreement

                    5. Particular circumstances showing that some applicants had distancedthemselves from the single Cembureau agreement or that theirparticipation in that agreement did not constitute an infringementof Article 85(1) of the Treaty

                B - Continuous nature of the single infringement

                    1. Contested decision

                    2. Starting date of the infringement

                    2.1. Cembureau and its direct members

                    2.2. Indirect members of Cembureau

                    2.3. Conclusions

                    3. Continuous nature of the infringement

                    3.1. CBR

                    3.2. Cembureau

                    3.3. FIC

                    3.4. VNC

                    3.5. Ciments Luxembourgeois

                    3.6. Dyckerhoff

                    3.7. SFIC

                    3.8. Vicat

                    3.9. Ciments Français

                    3.10. Heidelberger

                    3.11. Lafarge

                    3.12. Aalborg

                    3.13. BDZ

                    3.14. Unicem

                    3.15. Valenciana

                    3.16. BCA

                    3.17. Asland

                    3.18. Uniland

                    3.19. Oficemen

                    3.20. Irish Cement

                    3.21. Cimpor

                    3.22. SECIL

                    3.23. ATIC

                    3.24. Italcementi

                    3.25. Holderbank

                    3.26. Hornos Ibéricos

                    3.27. Aker

                    3.28. EUROC

                    3.29. Cementir

                    3.30. Blue Circle

                    3.31. AGCI

                    3.32. Halkis

            Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

            Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty

                A - Classification of the Cembureau agreement as a single and continuousagreement

                B - Participation of the various applicants in the single and continuousCembureau agreement

            Infringement of the rights of the defence when the applicants were given accessto the file

                A - Case T-25/95 CBR v Commission

                B - Case T-30/95 FIC v Commission

                C - Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission

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

                    E - Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission

                F - Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission

                G - Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission

                H - Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission

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

            Final conclusions

        XIII - Pleas of infringements of Article 85(1) and Article 190 of the Treaty and therights of defence in that the Commission finds that there were, within theframework of the WCC, infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and thatvarious applicants participated in them (Article 7 of the contested decision)

            Preliminary observations

            Protection of home markets and coordinated export of production surplusesoutside the Community

            System of exchange of information on individual undertakings

            Effect on inter-State trade

            The applicants' participation in the infringements referred to in Article 7 of thecontested decision

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

            Access to the file

            General conclusions

        XIV - The plea alleging that the order in Article 8 of the contested decision isunlawful

    Alternative claims seeking the cancellation or reduction of the fines

        I - Plea alleging inadequate or contradictory statement of reasons in the contesteddecision as regards the fines

        II - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as theCommission imposed a single fine for the group of infringements found inrelation to the grey cement market

        III - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principle of proportionality in the assessment of theintentional nature of the infringements

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

        V - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, andmanifest errors of assessment as regards the duration of the infringement foundin relation to the grey cement market

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

        VII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and principles of proportionality and equal treatment as wellas manifest errors of assessment in assessing the gravity of the infringementfound in relation to the grey cement market

            The aggravating circumstances found in recital 65, paragraph 5, of the contesteddecision

            The mitigating circumstance found in recital 65, paragraph 6, of the contesteddecision

            Failure to take account of certain mitigating circumstances

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

                B - Absence or minor impact of the anti-competitive effects of theinfringements

                C - Conduct on the market during the period in question

                D - No benefit from the infringement

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

                F - Self-defence

                G - Cooperation during the administrative procedure

                H - Intention to comply with Community competition law

                I - Novelty of the matter at issue

                J - The European cement industry as world leader

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

                L - Arrival of a new competitor on the market

                M - Fines not tax-deductible

                N - Financial situation of the offender

        VIII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, andmanifest errors of assessment in assessing the responsibility of individualundertakings in respect of the infringement found in relation to the grey cementmarket

        IX - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principle of proportionality in assessing theresponsibility of individual undertakings in respect of the infringement found inrelation to the white cement market

        X - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, the principlesof proportionality and equal treatment, and manifest errors of assessment asregards the turnover taken into account for the purpose of calculating thefines

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

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

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

        XIV - Conclusions

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

    Costs


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