Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:101
Date: 2001-03-21
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Bringing matters before the Commission;Effects of a declaration that a measure is void
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to 
adopt measures to comply with the judgment — Scope — Regard to be had to both 
the grounds and the operative part of the judgment 
(Art. 233 EC) 
2. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of 
a Commission decision granting an exemption under Article 81(3) EC — Possibility 
of the Commission going back on its position concerning the application of 
Article 81(1) EC — Conditions 
(Arts 81(1) EC, 230 EC and 233 EC) 
II - 1057 
SUMMARY — CASE T-206/99 
3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision 
applying the competition rules 
(Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Obliga­
tions of the Commission 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3; Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 6) 
5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Assess­
ment of the seriousness of the alleged interferences with competition and the 
persistence of their consequences — Practices having ceased — Duty of the Commis­
sion to ascertain whether anti-competitive effects continue 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
1. When the Community judicature 
annuls an act of an institution, that 
institution is required, under Art­
icle 233 EC, to take the measures 
necessary to comply with the judg­
ment. In that connection, in order to 
comply with the judgment and to 
implement it fully, the institution is 
required to observe not only the oper­
ative part of the judgment but also the 
grounds which led to the judgment and 
constitute its essential basis, inasmuch 
as they are necessary to determine the 
exact meaning of what is stated in the 
operative part. It is those grounds 
which, on the one hand, identify the 
precise provision held to be illegal and, 
on the other, indicate the specific 
reasons which underlie the finding of 
illegality contained in the operative 
part and which the institution con­
cerned must take into account when 
replacing the annulled measure. 
(see para. 35) 
2. Where, in a judgment annulling a 
Commission decision granting an 
exemption under Article 81(3) EC, the 
Court of First Instance does not rule on 
the application of Article 81(1) EC, the 
annulling judgment cannot have the 
effect of preventing the Commission 
from going back on its position con­
cerning the application of Article 81(1) 
EC. Such a change of position does, 
however, require a statement of rea­
sons. 
It is not for the Court of First Instance, 
in the context of an action for the 
annulment of an exemption decision 
brought pursuant to Article 230 EC, to 
raise of its own motion the plea 
concerning application of Article 81(1) 
EC. 
(see paras 41-42) 
II - 1058 
MÉTROPOLE TÉLÉVISION v COMMISSION 
3. The statement of reasons on which a 
decision adversely affecting a person is 
based must, first, be such as to enable 
the person concerned to ascertain the 
matters justifying the measure adopted 
so that, if necessary, he can defend his 
rights and verify whether the decision 
is well founded and, secondly, enable 
the Community judicature to exercise 
its power of review as to the legality of 
the decision. In that connection, the 
Commission is not obliged, in stating 
the reasons for the decisions which it 
takes to ensure the application of the 
competition rules, to adopt a position 
on all the arguments relied on by the 
persons concerned but need only set 
out the facts and legal considerations 
which are of decisive importance in the 
context of the decision. 
(see para. 44) 
4. In the context of investigating applica­
tions submitted to the Commission 
pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation 
No 17, although the Commission can­
not be compelled to conduct an inves­
tigation, the procedural safeguards 
provided for by Article 6 of Regulation 
No 99/63 oblige it nevertheless to 
examine carefully the factual and legal 
particulars brought to its notice by the 
complainant in order to decide whether 
they disclose conduct of such a kind as 
to distort competition in the common 
market and affect trade between the 
Member States. 
Although the Commission is not 
obliged to investigate each of the 
complaints lodged with it, once it 
decides to proceed with an investiga­
tion, it must, in the absence of a duly 
substantiated statement of reasons, 
conduct it with the requisite care, 
seriousness and diligence so as to be 
able to assess with full knowledge of 
the case the factual and legal particu­
lars submitted for its appraisal by the 
complainants. 
(see paras 58-59) 
5. When examining complaints, the Com­
mission is required to assess in each 
case how serious the alleged interfer­
ences with competition are and how 
persistent their consequences are. That 
II - 1059 
SUMMARY — CASE T-206/99 
obligation means in particular that it 
must take into account the duration 
and extent of the infringements com­
plained of and their effect on the 
competition situation in the Commu­
nity. 
Therefore, in deciding to dismiss a 
complaint of practices allegedly con­
trary to the Treaty, the Commission 
cannot rely solely on the fact that those 
practices have ceased, without having 
ascertained whether anti-competitive 
effects still continue. 
(see paras 64-65) 
II - 1060