Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:141
Date: 2000-05-25
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;Dominant position
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Bringing matters before the Commission
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Judgment delivered after back reference
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Order of 
priority fixed by the Commission — Obligation to give a statement of reasons — 
Refusal by the Commission to continue examination of a complaint on the basis that 
the practices complained of ceased after the complaint was lodged — Insufficient 
reasons for taking no action 
(EC Treaty, Art. 89(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 85(1) EC)) 
2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Account 
taken of the Community interest in the investigation of a case — Factors to be 
considered 
(EC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86 (now Arts 81 and 82 EC)) 
II - 2167 
SUMMARY — CASE T-77/95 RV 
3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Deci­
sions — Curing a defect in the statement of reasons during the proceedings before the 
Court — Not permissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC)) 
1. In order to perform its task of defining 
and implementing the orientation of 
Community competition policy, the 
Commission is entitled to give differing 
degrees of priority to the complaints 
brought before it. It follows that the 
Commission may not only decide the 
order in which complaints will be 
examined but also reject a complaint 
on the ground of lack of a sufficient 
Community interest in further investi­
gation of the case. 
The Commission's discretion in defin­
ing priorities is not unlimited however. 
Thus it is obliged to state reasons if it 
declines to continue with the investiga­
tion of a complaint, and the reasons 
stated must be sufficiently precise and 
detailed to enable the Court of First 
Instance effectively to review the Com­
mission's exercise of its discretion to 
define priorities. The purpose of that 
review is to ascertain 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. 
Moreover, when the Commission de­
cides on priorities for dealing with the 
complaints brought before it, it may 
not regard as excluded in principle 
from its purview certain situations 
which fall within the task entrusted to 
it by the Treaty. In particular, having 
received a complaint of infringements 
of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Arti­
cle 82 EC), the Commission is obliged 
to assess, on the basis of all the 
elements of fact and law obtained, the 
seriousness and duration of the alleged 
infringements and whether they con­
tinued to have effects, even if the 
allegedly abusive practices have ceased 
since the complaint was made. 
(see paras 39-40, 42-44) 
2. In order to assess the Community 
interest in further investigation of a 
case, the Commission must take 
account of the circumstances of the 
case and must in particular balance the 
significance of the damage which 
the alleged infringement may cause to 
the functioning of the common market 
against the probability of its being able 
to establish the existence of the in-
II - 2168 
UNION FRANÇAISE DE L'EXPRESS AND OTHERS V COMMISSION 
fringement and the extent of the in­
vestigative measures required for it to 
perform, under the best possible con­
ditions, its task of ensuring that Arti­
cles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (now 
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) are com­
plied with. 
(see para. 41) 
3. A decision must be sufficient in itself 
and the reasons on which it is based 
cannot derive from written or oral 
observations given subsequently when 
the decision is already the subject of 
proceedings before the Community 
judicature. 
(see para. 54) 
II - 2169