Order — ECLI:EU:C:2000:232
Date: 2000-05-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Dominant position
Concepts: General
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Order 
Actions for annulment — jurisdiction of the Community courts — Commission decision 
rejecting a complaint alleging infringement of the competition rules— Unlimited 
jurisdiction — None — Appeal based on the argument that annulment of the decision 
by the Court of First Instance is equivalent to a finding that the competition rules were 
infringed — Appeal clearly unfounded 
(EC Treaty, Arts 86 and 172 (now Arts 82 EC and 229 EC) and Art. 173 (now after 
amendment, Art. 230 EC)) 
I -3061 
STIMMARY — CASE C-42R/9R P 
Annulment by the Court of First Instance of 
a Commission decision rejecting a com­
plaint alleging infringement of Article 86 of 
the Treaty (now Article 82 EC) on the basis 
that the grounds of justification put for­
ward by the Commission in the contested 
decision were not such as to render that 
provision inapplicable is not equivalent to a 
finding by the Court of First Instance that 
there has been abuse of a dominant posi­
tion. Since the review of legality provided 
for in Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, Article 230 EC) does not con­
fer unlimited jurisdiction on the Court of 
First Instance, unlike that exercised by the 
Community Courts pursuant to Article 172 
of the EC Treaty (now Article 229 EC), the 
Court of First Instance is not entitled to 
substitute another decision for the con­
tested decision or to amend that decision. 
Since the Court of First Instance confined 
itself, as it is required to do in an action for 
annulment based on Article 173 of the 
Treaty, to determining whether the Com­
mission's reasoning was valid, any appeal 
based on the argument that, in annulling 
the contested decision, it ruled that there 
was abuse of a dominant position within 
the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty 
must be dismissed as being clearly unfoun­
ded. 
(see paras 24 to 31) 
I - 3062