Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:167
Date: 1999-09-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Dominant position
Concepts: General;Definition of the institution's position
Procedure: Action for failure to act - inadmissible;Action for failure to act - successful
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for failure to act — Commission under an obligation to act — Must adopt a 
decision as to how to respond to a complaint alleging infringement of the competition 
rules — Action to be taken within a reasonable time 
(EC Treaty, Art. 175 (now Art. 232 EC)) 
2. Actions for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Whether a 
direction may be issued to one of the institutions — Not permissible 
(EC Treaty, Arts 175, second para., and 176 (now Arts 232, second para., EC and 233 
EC) 
II - 2633 
SUMMARY — CASE T-127/98 
1. In the context of an action for failure to 
act, it is necessary to verify whether, 
when the Commission was served with 
a formal request under Article 175 of 
the Treaty (now Article 232 EC), it was 
under an obligation to act. 
When the procedure in respect of an 
alleged infringement of the competition 
rules has entered its third stage, that is 
to say, when the complainant has 
submitted his observations on the noti­
fication pursuant to Article 6 of Reg­
ulation No 99/63, the Commission is 
required, within a reasonable time, 
either to initiate a procedure with 
respect to the person complained 
against or to adopt a definitive decision 
rejecting the complaint. 
The question whether the duration of 
an administrative proceeding is reason­
able must be determined in relation to 
the particular circumstances of each 
case and, in particular, its context, the 
various procedural stages to be fol­
lowed by the Commission, the conduct 
of the parties in the course of the 
procedure, the complexity of the case 
and its importance for the various 
parties involved. In the particular con­
text of an investigation into a com­
plaint alleging infringement of the 
competition rules, it is appropriate, 
where the proceeding has entered its 
third stage, to take account of the years 
already spent on the investigation, the 
present state of the investigation of the 
case and the attitudes of the parties 
considered as a whole. 
2. The Court of First Instance has no 
jurisdiction to issue directions to the 
Community institutions. Consequently, 
pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty 
(now Article 232 EC), the Court may 
only declare that there has been an 
unlawful failure to act. It is then 
incumbent on the institution con­
cerned, pursuant to Article 176 of the 
Treaty (now Article 233 EC), to take 
the measures necessary to comply with 
the judgment of the Court. 
II - 2634