Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:52
Date: 2001-02-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Concepts: Bringing matters before the Commission
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — Order 
of priority assigned by the Commission — Account taken of Community interest in 
the investigation of a case — Discretion enjoyed by the Commission — Commission 
obliged to state reasons for a decision not to investigate a compiami further — Judicial 
review 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 31) 
2. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — 
Assessment of the Community interest in investigation of a case — Account taken 
of the existence of a number of complaints alleging similar conduct — Assessment of 
all the evidence — Joinder of administrative proceedings — Commission's discretion 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
II - 633 
SUMMARY — CASE T-26/99 
3. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — Com­
mission's obligations — Observance of a reasonable period — Breach — Conse­
quences — Annulment of the decision rejecting a complaint — Excluded 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
1. When it decides to assign different 
priorities to the examination of com­
plaints submitted to it under Article 3 
of Regulation No 17, the Commission 
may not only decide on the order in 
which they are to be examined but also 
reject a complaint on the ground that 
there is insufficient Community interest 
in further investigation of the case. 
However, the discretion which the 
Commission has for that purpose is 
not unlimited. Thus, the Commission is 
under an obligation to state reasons if it 
declines to continue with the examina­
tion of a complaint and those reasons 
must be sufficiently precise and 
detailed to enable the Court effectively 
to review the Commission's use of its 
discretion to define priorities. 
That review must not lead the Court to 
substitute its assessment of the Com­
munity interest for that of the Com­
mission but focuses on whether or not 
the contested decision is based on 
materially incorrect facts, or is vitiated 
by an error of law, a manifest error of 
appraisal or misuse of powers. 
(see paras 30-31) 
2. When assessing the Community inter­
est in investigating a complaint the 
Commission must not investigate it in 
isolation but rather in the context of 
the situation on the relevant market in 
general. The existence of a number of 
complaints alleging similar conduct by 
the same operators is one of the factors 
the Commission must take into 
account in its assessment of the Com­
munity interest. 
Similarly, where the Commission 
assesses the likelihood of being able to 
establish the existence of an infringe­
ment and the extent of the investigative 
measures needed for that purpose, it 
must take into account all the evidence 
in its possession and not merely assess 
separately the individual items of evi­
dence submitted by each complainant 
and conclude that each of the com­
plaints taken in isolation is not sup­
ported by sufficient evidence. 
II - 634 
TRABISCO v COMMISSION 
However, the Commission is not 
required to 'join' the procedures for 
examining different complaints con­
cerning the conduct of a particular 
undertaking, since the conduct of an 
investigation falls within the scope of 
its discretion. In particular, the fact that 
there are a number of complaints from 
operators belonging to different cate­
gories such as, in the context of the sale 
of motor vehicles, independent resel­
lers, authorised intermediaries and 
dealers cannot preclude the dismissal 
of such of those complaints as appear, 
according to the evidence available to 
the Commission, to be unfounded or 
lacking in Community interest. In such 
cases, the fact of having treated the 
different complaints separately cannot 
be regarded as such as being improper. 
(see paras 34-36) 
3. Although it is true that the Commission 
is required to adopt, within a reason­
able time, a decision on a complaint 
under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, 
the fact that it exceeds a reasonable 
time, even if proven, does not necessa­
rily in itself justify annulment of the 
contested decision. 
As regards application of the competi­
tion rules, a failure to act within a 
reasonable time can constitute a 
ground for annulment only in the case 
of a decision finding an infringement, 
where it has been proved that infringe­
ment of that principle has adversely 
affected the ability of the undertakings 
concerned to defend themselves. 
Except in that specific circumstance, 
failure to comply with the principle 
that a decision must be adopted within 
a reasonable time cannot affect the 
validity of the administrative procedure 
under Regulation No 17. 
(see paras 51-52) 
II - 635