Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:472
Date: 2001-09-20
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

SUMMARY — CASE C-94/00 
Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Powers of the Commission in investi­
gations — Provision of assistance by national authorities — Procedural details 
defined by national law — Review by national courts — Scope — Observance of 
the general principle of protection against arbitrary and disproportionate intervention 
by public authorities 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(6)) 
2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Powers of the Commission in investi­
gations — Provision of assistance by national authorities — Commission's obli­
gation — Indication of the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation — Scope 
(EC Treaty, Art. S (now Art. 10 EC); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(6)) 
1. In accordance with the general prin­
ciple of Community law affording 
protection against arbitrary or dispro­
portionate intervention by public auth­
orities in the sphere of the private 
activities of any person, whether natu­
ral or legal, a national court having 
jurisdiction under domestic law to 
authorise entry upon and seizures at 
the premises of undertakings suspected 
of having infringed the competition 
rules is required to verify that the 
coercive measures sought in pursuance 
of a request by the Commission for 
assistance under Article 14(6) of Regu­
lation No 17 are not arbitrary or 
disproportionate to the subject-matter 
of the investigation ordered. Without 
prejudice to any rules of domestic law 
governing the implementation of coer­
cive measures, Community law pre­
cludes review by the national court of 
the justification of those measures 
beyond what is required by the fore­
going general principle. 
(see para. 99, operative part 1) 
2 . Community law requires the Commis­
sion to ensure that the national court 
having jurisdiction under domestic law 
to authorise entry upon and seizures at 
the premises of undertakings suspected 
of having infringed the competition 
rules has at its disposal all the infor­
mation which it needs in order to carry 
out the review which it is required to 
undertake. In that regard, the infor-
I - 9012 
ROQUETTE FRÈRES 
mation supplied by the Commission 
must in principle include: 
— a description of the essential fea­
tures of the suspected infringement, 
that is to say, at the very least, an 
indication of the market thought to 
be affected and of the nature of the 
suspected restrictions of compe­
tition; 
— explanations concerning the man­
ner in which the undertaking at 
which the coercive measures are 
aimed is thought to be involved in 
the infringement in question; 
— detailed explanations showing that 
the Commission possesses solid fac­
tual information and evidence pro­
viding grounds for suspecting such 
infringement on the part of the 
undertaking concerned; 
— as precise as possible an indication 
of the evidence sought, of the 
matters to which the investigation 
must relate and of the powers 
conferred on the Community inves­
tigators; and 
— in the event that the assistance of 
the national authoritiesis requested 
by the Commission as a precaution­
ary measure, in order to overcome 
any opposition on the part of the 
undertaking concerned, expla­
nations enabling the national court 
to satisfy itself that, if authorisation 
for the coercive measures were not 
granted on precautionary grounds, 
it would be impossible, or very 
difficult, to establish the facts 
amounting to the infringement. 
On the other hand, the national court 
may not demand that it be provided 
with the evidence in the Commission's 
file on which the latter's suspicions are 
based. 
Where the national court considers that 
the information communicated by the 
Commission does not fulfil the above 
requirements, it cannot, without 
infringing Article 14(6) of Regulation 
No 17 and Article 5 of the Treaty (now 
Article 10 EC), simply dismiss the 
application brought before it. In such 
circumstances, it is required as rapidly 
as possible to inform the Commission, 
or the national authority which has 
brought the latter's request before it, of 
the difficulties encountered, where 
necessary by asking for any clarifica­
tion which it may need in order to 
carry out the review which it is to 
undertake. Not until any such clarifi­
cation is forthcoming, or the Commis­
sion fails to take any practical steps in 
response to its request, may the 
I - 9013 
SUMMARY — CASE C-94/00 
national court in question refuse to 
grant the assistance sought on the 
ground that, in the light of the infor­
mation available to it, it is unable to 
hold that the coercive measures envis­
aged are not arbitrary or dispropor­
tionate to the subject-matter of the 
investigation. 
The information to be provided by the 
Commission to the national court may 
be contained either in the investigation 
decision itself or in the request made to 
the national authorit ies under 
Article 14(6) of Regulation No 17, or 
indeed in an answer — even one given 
orally — to a question put by that 
court. 
(see para. 99, operative part 2-5) 
I - 9014