Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:8
Date: 1999-01-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Exclusive agreements
Concepts: Intervention;Division of powers between the Commission and the authorities of the Member States;Basis of liability;Bringing matters before the Commission;Networks in the motor vehicle sector
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Procedure — Intervention — Plea of inadmissibility not raised by the defendant — Not 
admissible 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, fourth para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
First Instance, Art. 116(3)) 
2. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Category 
exemptions — Regulation No 123/85 — Scope 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) and (3); Commission Regulation No 123/85) 
I I - 9 3 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-185/96, T-189/96 AND T-190/96 
3. Compétition — Administrative procedure — Investigation of complaints — Account to be 
taken of the Community interest attaching to investigation of a particular case — Criteria to 
be applied 
{EC Treaty, Art. 85(1)) 
4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Investigation of complaints — Obligation on 
the Commission to rule by decision as to whether an infringement has been committed — No 
such obligation — Open to the complainant to seek redress in the national courts 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Fault 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215) 
1. An intervener is not entitled to raise an 
objection of inadmissibility which -was 
not formulated in the form of order 
sought by the defendant. 
2. Regulation N o 123/85 on the application 
of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain 
categories of motor vehicle distribution 
and servicing agreements does not lay 
down mandatory provisions directly 
affecting the validity or content of the 
clauses of a contract or obliging the par­
ties to adapt their terms; nor, in cases 
where the conditions laid down in the 
Regulation are not satisfied in their 
entirety, does it have the effect of render­
ing a contract void. 
In such cases, the contract in question 
will be caught by the prohibition laid 
down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty only 
if its object or effect is perceptibly to 
restrict competition within the common 
market and it is capable of appreciably 
affecting trade between Member States. 
3. In order to dismiss a complaint on the 
ground that it lacks sufficient Commu­
nity interest, the Commission must, in 
exercising its power of appraisal, weigh 
the significance of the alleged infringe­
ments in relation to the functioning of the 
common market against the probability 
of being able to establish the existence of 
those infringements and the extent of the 
investigative measures required. 
It is for the Commission to gather suffi-
ciently precise and consistent evidence to 
support a finding that the infringements 
alleged in a complaint constitute restric­
tions of competition within the meaning 
of Article 85(1) of the Treaty. That 
requirement is not satisfied where it is 
I I - 9 4 
RIVIERA AUTO SERVICE AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
possible to give them a plausible explana­
tion which rules out any infringement of 
the Community rules on competition. 
4. Where the Commission does not have 
exclusive competence to find contractual 
clauses incompatible with Article 85(1) of 
the Treaty — the national courts also hav­
ing such competence, owing to the fact 
that the provision in question has direct 
effect — a complainant does not have the 
right to obtain from the Commission a 
decision within the meaning of Article 
189 of the Treaty regarding the existence 
or otherwise of the infringements alleged. 
In the context of standard-form contracts 
for the exclusive distribution of motor 
vehicles, the Commission may be all the 
more justified in urging complainants to 
seek redress in the national courts since it 
is for those courts to examine the actual 
conditions under which such agreements 
are to be performed by the parties and to 
assess, in the light of the applicable 
national law, the scope and consequences 
of any automatic nullity of certain con­
tractual provisions pursuant to Article 
85(2) of the Treaty, with particular regard 
to all the other matters covered by the 
agreement. 
5. In the absence of evidence that a decision 
to dismiss a complaint lodged under 
Article 3 of Regulation N o 17 is unlawful 
and where no separate allegation of 
unlawfulness has been made by the appli­
cant, the Court can find no Commission 
fault of such a nature as to render the 
Community liable. 
I I - 9 5