Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:117
Date: 2001-04-05
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: Competition
Concepts: Agreements and concentrations. Interference with conditions of competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between 
undertakings — Examination by the Commission — Examination of a non-notified 
agreement on own mitiative — Whether permissible — Factors to be taken into 
consideration 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65) 
2. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibited — System for 
the exchange of information — Sensitive and accurate nature of recent data 
exchanged — Incorrect assessment by the Commission — Effects 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1)) 
II - 1217 
SUMMARY — CASE T-16/98 
1. In the context of Article 65 of the 
ECSC Treaty, the absence of notifica­
tion of an agreement cannot prevent 
the Commission from examining its 
legality, since the Commission is en­
titled to act on its own initiative in 
order to ensure that the rules of 
competition are complied with. How­
ever, in such an examination of the 
legality of an agreement, the Commis­
sion is bound to take account of the 
legal and factual context and, in parti­
cular to rely on the precise provisions 
of the agreement. 
(see paras 32-33) 
2. Information exchange agreements are 
not generally prohibited automatically 
by Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty but 
only if they have certain characteristics 
relating, in particular, to the sensitive 
and accurate nature of recent data 
exchanged at short intervals. 
Where the Commission has based its 
assessment of an agreement on the 
combined effect of the exchange of 
the three ECSC questionnaires 2-71, 2-
73 and 2-74, even though the notified 
agreement does not provide for the 
exchange of ECSC questionnaire 2-73, 
which specifically furnishes the most 
accurate and detailed data and is 
accordingly likely to reveal the strategy 
of the various producers, this has the 
effect of completely invalidating the 
analysis made by the Commission. If 
the Commission had taken account of 
the real scope of the notified agree­
ment, which is limited to the exchange 
of data on the sales of the participating 
undertakings alone, without distin­
guishing between the different con­
sumer sectors, and which allows mar­
ket shares to be calculated only 
approximately, it is not inconceivable 
that its evaluation would have been 
different and that it would have con­
sidered that the agreement was not 
contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC 
Treaty. 
(see paras 44-45) 
II - 1218