Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:189
Date: 2000-04-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Pleas in law;Measures of inquiry and measures of organisation of procedure
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law— Infringement of essential procedural 
requirements— infringement of the provisions of the Commission's Rules of 
Procedure relating to the authentication of its acts in the languages which are 
binding— Whether necessary to rely on harm or defects other than lack of 
authentication — Not necessary — Issue that must he raised of the Court's own 
motion 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC), Commission's Rules of 
Procedure, Art. 12) 
I - 2391 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-287/95 P AND C-288/95 P 
2. Procedure — Measures of inquiry — Request for production of a document — 
Authenticated act — Whether necessary to establish prima facie defects other than the 
lack of proper authentication — Not necessary 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts. 49 and 65b) 
3. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural 
requirements — hack of authentication of a decision prior to notification in breach 
of the provisions of the Commission's Rules of Procedure 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230), Commission's Rule of 
Procedure, Art. 12)) 
1. The authentication of acts provided for 
in the first paragraph of Article 12 of 
the Commission's Rules of Procedure is 
intended to guarantee legal certainty by 
ensuring that the text adopted by the 
college of Commissioners becomes 
definitive in the languages which are 
binding. The principle of legal certainty 
requires that any act of the adminis­
tration that has legal effects must be 
definitive, in particular as regards its 
author and content. 
It follows that authentication constitu­
tes an essential procedural requirement 
within the meaning of Article 173 of 
the Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 230 EC), breach of which gives 
rise to an action for annulment. It is the 
mere failure to authenticate an act 
which constitutes the infringement of 
an essential procedural requirement 
and it is not necessary also to establish 
that the act is vitiated by some other 
defect or that the lack of authentication 
resulted in harm to the person relying 
on it. 
If the Community court finds, on 
examining the act produced to it, that 
the act has not been properly authenti­
cated, it must of its own motion raise 
the issue of infringement of an essential 
procedural requirement through failure 
to carry out proper authentication and, 
in consequence, annul the act vitiated 
by that defect. 
(see paras 44-49, 55) 
2. It is for the Community court to decide 
in accordance with the provisions of 
the Rules of Procedure in regard to 
measures of inquiry whether it is 
necessary for an authenticated act to 
be produced, in the light of the circum­
stances of the case. It is not necessary 
to establish by reference to other fac­
tors that there is prima facie a defect in 
the act other than the lack of proper 
authentication. 
(see paras 52-53) 
I - 2392 
COMMISSION V SOLVAY 
3. It follows from a literal and schematic 
interpretation of Article 12 of the 
Commission's Rules of Procedure that 
authentication of an act adopted by the 
Commission must necessarily precede 
its notification, as is confirmed by the 
purpose of that rule on authentication. 
There is an infringement of an essential 
procedural requirement within the 
meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty 
(now, after amendment, Article 230 
EC) where authentication of a decision 
occurs on a date after the notification 
of the act. 
(see paras 65, 68) 
I - 2393