Judgment_paragraph 448 · JFE Engineering Corp., formerly NKK Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00, T-78/00)

448In support of that claim, Sumitomo and JFENKK submit that, according to settled case-law, the Commission must state its case fully so that the addressee of an SO is in a position to make known effectively, during the administrative procedure, its views on the correctness and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged (Case 17/74 Transocean Marine Paint Association v Commission [1974] ECR 1063, paragraph 15; Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Case 113/77 NTN Toy o Bearing v Council [1979] ECR 1185, pp. 1212 and 1261; Case 264/82 Time v Council and Commission [1985] ECR 849, paragraphs 24 to 30, Case C-49/88 Al-Jubail Fertilizer v Commission [1991] ECR I-3187, paragraphs 15 to 17, Mo och Domsjö v Commission, cited in paragraph 425 above, paragraph 63, and Cement, cited in paragraph 66 above, paragraphs 106 and 476). It is also established case-law that an SO must set out the conclusions that the Commission intends to draw from the facts, documents and legal considerations of the case, which it failed properly to do in the present case (Case C-62/86 AKZO v Commission [1991] ECR I-3359, paragraph 29, Mo och Domsjö, cited above, paragraph 63; and Case T-9/89 Hüls v Commission [1992] ECR II-499, paragraph 39). Finally, the principle of protection of the rights of the defence prohibits the Commission from deviating from the facts reported in the SO when it prepares its final decision (Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 11).