90Furthermore, Sumitomo contends that the Court of First Instance failed to observe the rules on the taking of evidence when it held, at paragraph 336 of the judgment under appeal, that ‘even if it is assumed that the Japanese applicants may have raised a doubt as to the specific products covered by the agreement penalised in Article 1 of the contested decision — which has not been demonstrated — it must be observed that if the decision, taken as a whole, shows that the infringement found related to a particular kind of product and mentions the evidence on which that conclusion is based, the fact that the decision does not contain a precise and exhaustive list of all the types of product covered by the infringement is not sufficient in itself to justify annulment thereof (see, by analogy, in the context of a plea alleging an inadequate statement of reasons, [Case T-310/94 Gruber + Weber v Commission [1998] ECR II-1043], paragraph 214). ...’. In following that reasoning in support of its theory that the Commission had demonstrated an infringement in respect of project line pipe, the Commission reversed the burden of proof.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.