Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:319
Date: 1999-12-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Exclusive agreements
Concepts: Pleas in law;Bringing matters before the Commission
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Action for failure to act
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — Order of 
priority assigned by the Commission — Account taken of the 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 — 
Decision subject to judicial review 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
2. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Breach of essential procedural require­
ments — Court may consider that question of its own motion 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC)) 
II - 3639 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-9/96 AND T-211/96 
3. Competition — Administrative proceedings — Investigation of complaints — Account 
to be taken of the Community interest in the investigation of a case — Factors to be 
taken into account — Need to clarify the legal position relating to the sector 
concerned — Motor vehicle distribution sector — Commission entitled, where several 
complaints allege similar unlawful conduct on the part of several undertakings, to 
investigate one complaint only — Open to the other complainants to apply to the 
national courts 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3) 
1. Where the Commission assigns differ­
ent priorities to complaints submitted 
to it under Article 3 of Regulation 
No 17, it is entitled not only to decide 
the order in which the complaints are 
to be examined but also to reject a 
complaint for lack of a sufficient Com­
munity interest in further investigation 
of the case. 
The discretion enjoyed by the Commis­
sion for that purpose is not unlimited, 
however. Accordingly, the Commission 
is under an obligation to state reasons 
if it declines to continue with the 
examination of a complaint, and the 
reasons stated must be sufficiently 
precise and detailed to enable the 
Court of First Instance effectively to 
review the Commission's use of its 
discretion to define priorities. 
That review may not lead the Court of 
First Instance to substitute its assess­
ment of the Community interest for 
that of the Commission, but focuses on 
whether 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. 
2. The Court of First Instance may of its 
own motion consider the question of 
infringement of essential procedural 
requirements and, in particular, of the 
procedural guarantees conferred by 
Community law. 
3. In order to evaluate the Community 
interest in investigating a complaint 
submitted to it pursuant to Article 3 of 
Regulation No 17, the Commission 
must balance the significance of the 
alleged infringement as regards the 
functioning of the common market, 
the probability of its being able to 
establish the existence of the infringe­
ment and the extent of the investigative 
measures required for it to perform, 
under the best possible conditions, its 
task of making sure that Articles 85 
and 86 of the Treaty (now Articles 81 
EC and 82 EC) are complied with. 
II - 3640 
EUROPÉENNE AUTOMOBILE V COMMISSION 
To that end, it is legitimate for the 
Commission to take account not only 
of the seriousness of the alleged infrin­
gement and of the extent of the mea­
sures of investigation required in order 
to prove it, but also of the need to 
clarify the legal position relating to 
conduct alleged in the complaint and to 
define the rights and obligations under 
Community law of the various eco­
nomic operators affected by that con­
duct. 
When investigating a complaint alle­
ging infringement of Article 85 of the 
Treaty in the motor vehicle distribution 
sector, since the respective rights and 
obligations of the authorised agents, 
car manufacturers and dealers have 
been defined and set out in the block 
exemption regulations, by a Commis­
sion communication and by judgments 
of both the Court of Justice and the 
Court of First Instance, the Commis­
sion is entitled to reach the conclu­
sion — and commits no manifest error 
in so doing — that the national courts 
and administrative authorities were 
capable of dealing with the infringe­
ments alleged in the complaint and of 
protecting the complainant's rights 
under Community law. 
Thus, where the Commission is faced 
with a situation where numerous fac­
tors give rise to a suspicion of anti­
competitive conduct on the part of 
several large undertakings in the same 
economic sector, it is entitled to con­
centrate 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 parties concerned that it 
was open to them to bring an action in 
the national courts. 
II - 3641