Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:54
Date: 2001-02-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Concepts: Bringing matters before the Commission
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — Order 
of priority assigned by the Commission — Account taken of Community interest in 
the investigation of a case — Discretion enjoyed by the Commission — Commission 
obliged to state reasons for a decision not to investigate a complaint further — Judicial 
review 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
2. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — 
Assessment of the Community interest in investigation of a case — Account taken 
of the cessation of the practices in question — Conditions 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
II-691 
SUMMARY — CASE T-115/99 
3. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — 
Assessment of the Community interest in investigation of a case — Criteria — 
Commission's discretion as to the extent to which it investigates a complaint 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
1. When it decides to assign different 
priorities to the examination of com­
plaints submitted to it under Article 3 
of Regulation No 17, the Commission 
may not only decide on the order in 
which they are to be examined but also 
reject a complaint on the ground that 
there is insufficient Community interest 
in further investigation of the case. 
However, the discretion which the 
Commission has for that purpose is 
not unlimited. Thus, the Commission is 
under an obligation to state reasons if it 
declines to continue with the examina­
tion of a complaint, and those reasons 
must be sufficiently precise and 
detailed to enable the Court effectively 
to review the Commission's use of its 
discretion to define priorities. 
That review must not lead the Court to 
substitute its assessment of the Com­
munity interest for that of the Com­
mission but focuses on whether or not 
the contested decision is based on 
materially incorrect facts, or is vitiated 
by an error of law, a manifest error of 
appraisal or misuse of powers. 
(see paras 31-32, 34) 
2. In deciding to take no further action on 
a complaint against those practices on 
the ground of lack of Community 
interest, the Commission cannot rely 
solely on the fact that practices alleged 
to be contrary to the Treaty have 
ceased, without having ascertained that 
anti-competitive effects have ceased 
and, if appropriate, that the seriousness 
of the alleged interferences with com­
petition or the persistence of their 
consequences has not been such as 
to give the complaint a Community 
interest. 
However, in the absence of specific 
evidence, supplied by the complainant, 
of a permanent alteration in the struc­
ture of the market, the Commission 
does not err in law with regard to 
assessment of the Community interest 
II - 692 
SEP v COMMISSION 
by not expressly investigating whether 
any anti-competitive effects of the 
alleged infringement continue to exist. 
(see para. 33, 42) 
3. In a decision rejecting a complaint, the 
Commission may reasonably argue 
that it is given authority to implement 
competition policy, which does not 
mean that its task is to settle individual 
disputes. 
It is also reasonable for the Commis­
sion, when assessing the Community 
interest in investigating a complaint, to 
take account of the need to clarify the 
legal position relating to the conduct 
alleged in the complaint and to define 
the rights and obligations under Com­
munity competition law of the various 
economic operators affected by that 
conduct. 
Where the Commission is faced with a 
situation in which numerous factors 
give rise to a suspicion of anti-compe­
titive conduct on the part of several 
large undertakings in the same eco­
nomic sector, it is entitled to concen­
trate its efforts on one of the under­
takings concerned, whilst at the same 
time indicating to the economic opera­
tors who may have suffered damage as 
a result of the anti-competitive conduct 
of the other undertakings concerned 
that it is open to them to bring an 
action in the national courts. If it were 
otherwise, the Commission would be 
forced to spread its resources across a 
number of separate wide-ranging inves­
tigations, with the attendant risk that 
none could be brought to a satisfactory 
conclusion. The benefit to the Com­
munity legal order stemming from the 
exemplary value of a decision with 
regard to one of the undertakings in 
breach of the competition rules would 
then be lost, in particular for the 
economic operators injured by the 
conduct of the other companies. 
The Commission enjoys a discretion as 
regards the extent to which it investi­
gates a claim. It must balance the 
significance of the impact which the 
alleged infringement may have on the 
functioning of the common market, the 
probability of its being able to establish 
the existence of the infringement and 
the extent of the investigative measures 
required. 
(see paras 43-44, 46, 55) 
II - 693