Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:578
Date: 1999-11-25
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices;Dominant position
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Belgium;United Kingdom

summary publication), II-1825 and II-1901 respectively. 8: - OJ, English Special Edition, Second Series, VII, p. 3. Article 16 of the current Rules of Procedure provides that '[instruments] adopted by the Commission ... shall be attached ... in such a way that they cannot be separated, to a summary note prepared at the end of the meeting at which they were adopted [and] authenticated by the signatures of the President and the Secretary-General on the last page of the summary note‘ (OJ 1999 L 252, p. 45). 9: - OJ 1991 L 136, p. 1. 10: - Case T-31/91, paragraphs 39 and 41; Case T-32/91, paragraphs 50 and 52, and Case T-37/91, paragraphs 89 and 91; all are cited in footnote 6 above. The phrase in [ ] appears only in the former two judgments. 11: - Case T-43/92 Dunlop Slazenger v Commission [1994] ECR II-441; Case T-35/92 John Deere v Commission [1994] ECR II-957, and Case T-29/92 SPO v Commission [1995] ECR II-289. 12: - Case C-135/93 [1995] ECR I-1651. 13: - Case 30/78 Distillers Company v Commission [1980] ECR 2229. 14: - Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78 Van Landewyck v Commission [1980] ECR 3125. 15: - Or, in the Solvay cases, 'l'authentification est une condition de forme‘. 16: - See the citation in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion. 17: - Case 30/88 Greece v Commission [1989] ECR 3711, paragraph 14 of his Opinion. 18: - Case 9/56 Meroni v High Authority [1957 and 1958] ECR 133, p. 152. 19: - As the facts of this case predate both the Treaty on European Union and the Amsterdam Treaty, for Treaty articles on which I base an argument, as opposed to those which apply to the facts of these cases, I shall in this Opinion generally refer to the current numbering. 20: - Case 1/54 [1954-1956] ECR 1, p. 15. 21: - Case 2/54 [1954-1956] ECR 37, pp. 51 and 52. 22: - Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, paragraph 33; see also Case 139/79 Maizena v Council [1980] ECR 3393, paragraph 34; together known as the 'Isoglucose‘ cases. 23: - Case C-212/91 Angelopharm [1994] ECR I-171 (the Scientific Committee for Cosmetology). 24: - Case 278/84 Germany v Commission [1987] ECR 1 (Agri-monetary Management Committee, Cereals sector); Germany's complaint was rejected on the facts. See also Case C-241/95 The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte Accrington Beef and Others [1996] ECR I-6699 and Case C-244/95 Moskof v EOK [1997] ECR I-6441. 25: - Case C-263/95 Germany v Commission [1998] ECR I-441 (Standing Committee on Construction), hereinafter 'Construction Products‘. 26: - See respectively Angelopharm and Construction Products, cited in footnotes 22 and 24 above. 27: - Case C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission [1991] ECR I-2257, paragraph 17, and Case C-304/89 Oliveira v Commission [1991] ECR I-2283, paragraph 21. 28: - Case 68/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 855, paragraph 48; the contested Directive was adopted by a qualified majority, while only a simple majority was required for the adoption by the Council of its Rules of Procedure (Article 5 of the Merger Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 207(3) EC) read with Article 148(2) of the EEC Treaty (now Article 205(2) EC)). 29: - Case 131/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 905. 30: - For the ECSC Treaty, see Case 18/57 Nold v High Authority [1959] ECR 41; for the E(E)C Treaty, see Case 158/80 REWE v Hauptzollamt Kiel [1981] ECR 1805. 31: - Case 45/86 Commission v Council [1987] ECR 1493; for a useful summary of the case-law in this area, see Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97 Parliament v Council [1999] ECR I-1139. 32: - Case 211/81 Commission v Denmark [1982] ECR 4547, paragraph 9. 33: - See, respectively, Case 114/81 Tunnel Refineries v Council [1982] ECR 3189 and Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023. 34: - Case C-392/95 Parliament v Council [1997] ECR I-3213, paragraphs 21 to 23. 35: - Case 30/78, cited in footnote 12 above, Opinion of Advocate General Warner, pp. 2279 and 2290. 36: - Ibid., paragraphs 25 to 29. 37: - Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78, cited in footnote 13 above, paragraph 47. 38: - Case 68/86, cited in footnote 27 above, paragraph 38. 39: - Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86 [1988] ECR 4821, paragraph 17. 40: - Case C-69/89 [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraphs 49 and 50. 41: - Ibid., paragraphs 13 to 15, pp. 2118 and 2119. 42: - This is still the case; see Article 2(6) of Council Decision 1999/358/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 31 May 1999 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure, OJ 1999 L 147, p. 13. 43: - Case C-69/89, cited in footnote 39 above, Report for the Hearing, paragraph 96, p. 2095. 44: - Respectively Case 68/86, cited in footnote 27 above, and Case C-263/95, cited in footnote 24 above. 45: - It is also clear from Case C-58/94 Netherlands v Council [1996] ECR I-2169 that the Rules of Procedure of an institution can confer rights on individuals. 46: - Respectively Cases T-29/92, T-35/92 and T-43/92, cited in footnote 10 above. 47: - The Commission also claims in its reply in Case C-286/95 P to have relied on its change of practice before the Court of First Instance in the present case. I do not see how a change of practice in 1992 could have availed the Commission in respect of a decision adopted in December 1990. 48: - Case C-135/93, cited in footnote 11 above. 49: - Ibid., paragraph 76 of the Opinion. 50: - Subject to the matter of the missing paragraph 63 of Decision 91/299/EEC; see T-32/91 Solvay v Commission, cited in footnote 6 above, paragraphs 46 to 48. 51: - Case T-31/91, paragraph 38; Case T-32/91, paragraph 49, and Case T-37/91, paragraph 88; all are cited in footnote 6 above. 52: - Case C-137/92 P, cited in footnote 4 above, paragraph 77. 53: - See also Article 5 of the contested Decisions as published in the Official Journal, each of which specifies that the decision 'is enforceable pursuant to Article 192 of the EEC Treaty‘. 54: - Case 131/86, cited in footnote 28 above. 55: - Case C-137/92 P, cited in footnote 4 above, paragraph 75. 56: - See Article 16 of the current Rules of Procedure of the Commission, cited in footnote 7 above. 57: - See paragraph 24 of the present Opinion. 58: - Cases T-9/89, T-10/89, T-11/89, T-12/89, T-13/89, T-14/89, and T-15/89 Hüls and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II-499, II-629, II-757, II-907, II-1021, II-1155, and II-1275. The judgments on appeal in these cases, and in a number of other related cases in which the authentication issue had not been raised at first instance, were handed down on 8 July 1999. The issue of whether the Court of First Instance was obliged to admit the plea concerning authentication was not raised in identical terms in each case; for convenience, I shall refer only to Case C-199/92 P Hüls v Commission [1999] ECR I-0000 (hereinafter 'Hüls‘), which covers the relevant points fully. 59: - Case C-137/92 P, cited in footnote 4 above. 60: - See further paragraph 73 below. 61: - Case C-349/99 P [1999] ECR I-0000. 62: - Case 30/59 [1961] ECR 1, pp. 17 and 18. 63: - Case C-252/96 P European Parliament v Quijano y Lloréns [1998] ECR I-7421, paragraph 30. 64: - Case 18/57, cited in footnote 29 above. 65: - Case 1/54, cited in footnote 18 above, p. 15. 66: - Case 2/54, cited in footnote 19 above, pp. 51 and 52. 67: - Case C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission and Case C-304/89 Oliveira v Commission, both cited in footnote 26 above. 68: - Case 108/81 Amylum v Council [1982] ECR 3107. 69: - Case 1/54, cited in footnote 19 above. 70: - Case 2/54, cited in footnote 20 above. 71: - Case 18/57, cited in footnote 29 above, pp. 51 and 52. 72: - Case 108/81, cited in footnote 67 above, paragraph 27. 73: - Case 1/54, cited in footnote 19 above. 74: - Case 2/54, cited in footnote 20 above. 75: - See the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Case C-199/92 P Hüls, cited in footnote 57 above, paragraph 54. 76: - Case C-199/92 P Hüls, cited in footnote 57 above. 77: - Ibid., paragraphs 123, 125 and 128. 78: - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, cited in footnote 8 above, Articles 43 to 49. 79: - Ibid., Article 113. 80: - Case 77/70 Prelle v Commission [1971] ECR 561, paragraph 7 and Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétes de Football Association and Others v Bosman and Others [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 53. 81: - C-199/92 P Hüls, cited in footnote 57 above, paragraph 128. 82: - Case C-137/92 P BASF and Others, cited in footnote 4 above. 83: - Case C-199/92 P Hüls, cited in footnote 57 above, paragraph 131. 84: - Ibid., paragraph 130, emphasis added. 85: - Ibid., paragraph 132. 86: - Case T-31/91, paragraph 32, Case T-32/91, paragraph 38, and Case T-37/91, paragraph 83, all cited in footnote 6 above. 87: - Case C-199/92 P Hüls, cited in footnote 57 above, paragraph 64, referring to C-53/92 P Hilti v Commission [1994] ECR I-667, paragraphs 10 and 42. 88: - See, for example, Cases T-1/89, T-2/89, and T-3/89 Rhône-Poulenc and Others v Commission [1991] ECR II-867, II-1087 and II-1177.