本論文係以2001年歐洲水泥國際卡特爾案為研究對象。該案起因於1983年1月14日歐洲水泥產業資深代表共同開會達成「互不銷售至對方市場」決議，該項決議禁止與會業者於歐洲區域內，做出任何可能危害鄰國水泥市場之外銷行為。歐盟執委會認為42個歐洲企業與公會為了瓜分歐洲灰、白水泥市場，所共同參與達成一連串協議與一致性行為，違反EC條約第81(1)條。故於1994年11月30日達成94/815/EC決議 (又稱為「水泥決議」)，對被處分人處罰鍰共計近2.5億歐元。相關被處分業者向第一審法院提出上訴，並要求法院撤銷執委會之決定及罰緩。第一審法院於2000年撤銷執委會部份的決定及罰錢。而對於第一審法院之判決，共有6家被處分人提出上訴;然歐洲法院審理後，僅減少其中一家被處分人之罰錢，故實質上仍維持第一審法院於2000年之原判。本案為歐盟執委會有史以來處理過最大的競爭法案件，不僅涉及的公會與國家數目最多，罰鍰的金額也最大。此外，本案亦為第一審法院所處理過的最大、最冗長的案件。本案之系爭企業與公會，於第一審法院審理時，控訴執委會於行政程序中多次侵害其公平聽證權、當事人抗辯權及閱卷權，並抱怨執委會於異議書中未提供所有必要資訊，導致系爭企業對於執委會之控訴，無法提供適切的辯護與反駁云云。被處分人上述之指控有的成立、有的被法院駁回。由於這些爭點均與歐盟法律的基本原則相關，倘執委會之行政程序有違反歐盟法律所保障的基本原則之情事，法院則可能據此撤銷執委會之決議。

Competition is a basic mechanism of the market economy and is a simple and efficient means of guaranteeing consumers a level of excellence in terms of the quality and prices of products and services. In order to be effective, competition assumes that the market is made up of suppliers who are independent of each other, with each being subject to the competitive pressure exerted by the others. Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty is designed to prohibit agreements, decisions, and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have an effect on the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. This research focuses on the 2004 European Cement Cartel Fines Case. This case is the biggest case that both the European Commission and the Court of First Instance has ever dealt with in terms of parties and fines. The purpose of this research is to analyse the above-mentioned case and to clarify some of the issues when applying Article 81 (1) of the EC Treaty, especially on the “right to a fair hearing,” the “right to a defense” and “access to the Commission investigation file.”