257However, it should be borne in mind, first, that the applicant’s assertion that a penalty equivalent to the maximum limit of 10 % of its total turnover, provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, is equivalent to a maximum penalty is incorrect. As the case-law shows, that limit has a distinct and autonomous objective by comparison with the criteria of gravity and duration of the infringement, namely to prevent fines being imposed which it is foreseeable that the undertakings, owing to their size, as determined, albeit approximately and imperfectly, by their total turnover, will not be able to pay (Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission, paragraph 69 above, paragraphs 280 and 282, and judgment of 8 July 2008 in Case T-52/03Knauf Gips v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 452). Thus, contrary to the impression given by the applicant, that limit, laid down by the legislature, is uniformly applicable to all undertakings and arrived at according to the size of each of them and seeks to ensure that the fines are not excessive or disproportionate (see, to that effect, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission, paragraph 69 above, paragraph 281, and Knauf Gips v Commission, paragraph 453 and the case-law cited). The only possible consequence of such a limit is that the amount of the fine calculated on the basis of the criteria of gravity and duration of the infringement will be reduced to the maximum permitted level where it exceeds that level. Its application implies that the undertaking concerned will not pay the full amount of the fine which in principle would be payable if it were assessed on the basis of those criteria (see Knauf Gips v Commission, paragraph 454 and the case-law cited).