Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:756
Date: 2018-09-20
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Dominant position
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Austria;Poland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 20 September 2018 1. Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Determination of priorities by the Commission — Account to be taken of the EU interest in investigating a case — Discretion of the Commission (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU) 5. Competition — EU rules — Application by national courts – Action for compensation of the damage caused by infringements of the rules on competition – Duty of the EU judicature to analyse the actual possibilities of instituting proceedings before the national courts —None (Art. 19(1) TEU; Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 6) 6. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Commission’s duty to adopt a decision as to the existence of an infringement —None (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7) 7. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility 8. Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion — Not included (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 31, 32) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 33) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 36) 4. It is true that when the Commission evaluates the Union interest in opening an investigation in competition matters, it is required to assess in each case how serious the alleged interferences with competition are and how persistent their consequences are and that that obligation means in particular that it must take into account the duration and extent of the infringements complained of and their effect on the competition situation in the European Union. However, in view of the fact that the assessment of the Union interest raised by a complaint depends on the circumstances of each case, the number of criteria of assessment the Commission may refer to should not be limited, nor conversely should it be required to have recourse exclusively to certain criteria. Given that, in a field such as competition law, the factual and legal circumstances may differ considerably from case to case, it is permissible to apply criteria which have not hitherto been considered or to give priority to a single criterion for assessing that Union interest. (see paras 60, 61) 5. It is open to any natural or legal person to bring actions before the national courts for compensation of the damage allegedly caused by the conduct the subject of a complaint to the Commission in competition matters, in order to obtain compliance with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and to assert his rights under those provisions before a national court, in particular when the Commission decides not to pursue his complaint. In that context, it cannot validly be claimed that the possibility of bringing an action for compensation before a Member State’s courts is not genuine and that the EU judicature should analyse the actual possibilities open to the person concerned of instituting proceedings before those courts. As provided for by the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, it is for the Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection for individual parties in the fields covered by EU law, and not for the Commission to make up for any shortcomings in judicial protection at national level by opening an investigation requiring considerable resources where the likelihood of finding an infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU is low. (see paras 83, 86, 87) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 97) 7. See the text of the decision. (see para. 99) 8. See the text of the decision. (see para. 102)