Order — ECLI:EU:T:1997:192
Date: 1997-12-10
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: ECSC matters;Agreements and concentrations
Concepts: Ancillary procedures and applications
Procedure: Action for annulment
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision 
imposing fines for infringement of the competition rules — Additional explanations 
during the proceedings before the Court — Whether permissible 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 15) 
2. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibited — Infringe­
ment — Attribution of responsibility — Economic successor 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1) and (5)) 
II - 239 
SUMMARY — CASE T-134/94 
1. The statement of reasons required 
under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty 
must enable the person concerned to 
ascertain the matters relied upon to 
justify the measure adopted so that, if 
necessary, he can defend his rights and 
verify whether the decision is well 
founded; secondly, it must enable the 
Community judicature to review the 
legality of the decision. The require­
ment must be considered in the light of 
the circumstances of the case, in parti­
cular the content of the measure in 
question, the nature of the reasons 
relied on and the context in which the 
measure was adopted. 
In the case of a decision imposing fines 
for infringement of the competition 
rules, where the undertaking concerned 
has set out, both in its reply to the 
statement of objections and in its 
written submissions, all the elements 
of fact and of law which in its view will 
serve to refute the Commission's argu­
ment, there is nothing to prevent the 
latter from explaining before the Court 
of First Instance the reasoning set out 
in that decision by referring to the 
factual background described by the 
undertaking itself. 
2. In certain circumstances, an infringe­
ment of the competition rules may be 
imputed to the economic successor of 
the legal person responsible — even 
where the latter has not ceased to exist 
on the date on which the decision 
finding the infringement is adopted — 
so that the effectiveness of those rules 
will not be compromised because of 
changes to, inter alia, the legal form of 
the undertakings concerned. 
II - 240