«(Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams)»

1.. Appeals – Grounds – Procedural irregularity – Decision founded on facts or documents of which one of the parties is unaware – Infringement of the rights of the defence (ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2.. Procedure – Duration of the procedure before the Court of First Instance – Reasonable period – Factors to be taken into account

3.. Appeals – Grounds – Erroneous assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Appeal dismissed (Art. 32d(1) CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

4.. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Request for production of a document – Discretion of the Court of First Instance (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 49 and 65(b))

5.. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Anti-competitive effects of the infringement – Criterion not conclusive (ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5))

6.. ECSC – Agreements – Concerted practice – Meaning – Criteria of coordination and cooperation – Interpretation – Agreement on the exchange of information (ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1); Art. 81(1) EC)

7.. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Administrative procedure – Right of access to the Commission's file – Objectives – Ensuring effective exercise of the rights of the defence – Infringement – Penalised, despite access being given during the judicial proceedings, if there are documents in the file which may be useful for the undertaking's defence ( ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1))

8.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision imposing fines for infringement of the competition rules – Merely desirable that the method of calculating the fine be disclosed ( ECSC Treaty, Arts 15, first para., and 65(5))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 (1)

((Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams))

In Case C-199/99 P,

appellant,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-151/94

the other party to the proceedings being:

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges,

Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 31 January 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,

gives the following

The first ground of appeal

The first limb of the first ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The second limb of the first ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The third limb of the first ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The second ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The third ground of appeal

The first limb of the third ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The second limb of the third ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The fourth ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The fifth ground of appeal

The first limb of the fifth ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The second limb of the fifth ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

The sixth ground of appeal

Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

hereby:

Wathelet

Edward

La Pergola

Jann

von Bahr

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 2003.

R. Grass

M. Wathelet

Registrar

President of the Fifth Chamber