Order — ECLI:EU:C:2001:387
Date: 2001-07-05
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Transport
Concepts: Appeals;Applications by natural or legal persons;Intervention
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: France

Summary of the Order 
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Acts of direct and individual 
concern to them — Commission regulation on the application of Article 81(3) EC to 
categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices — Action brought by 
distributor undertakings bound by the vertical agreements in question and associations 
representing the interests of such undertakings — Inadmissibility 
(Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249 EC; Commission Regulation No 2790/1999) 
I - 5263 
SUMMARY — CASE C-341/00 P 
2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the appeal — Inadmis­
sibility 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 
3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Acts of direct and individual 
concern to them — Absolute bar to proceedings — Seriousness of the infringement by 
the institution concerned — No effect 
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 
4. Procedure — Intervention — Main proceedings manifestly inadmissible — Order 
ruling inadmissible delivered before an application to intervene is allowed and the 
time-limit for making such an application has not yet expired — Whether permissible 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts. 37 and 46; Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
First Instance, Arts 111, 114(4) and 116(3)) 
1. The Court of First Instance did not err 
in law in finding that Commission 
Regulation No 2790/1999 on the 
application of Article 81(3) EC to 
categories of vertical agreements and 
concerted practices is, in view of its 
scope, legislative in character and 
therefore not a decision within the 
meaning of Article 249 EC. 
Furthermore, the Court of First 
Instance correctly applied the settled 
case-law of the Court of Justice to the 
effect that natural or legal persons can 
be considered to be individually con­
cerned only if the measure in question 
affects them because of certain attri­
butes which are peculiar to them or by 
reason of circumstances in which they 
are differentiated from all other per­
sons. In this case, Regulation 
No 2790/1999 is of concern to the 
appellants only by reason of their 
objective capacity as economic opera­
tors bound by vertical agreements. 
(see paras 25-27) 
2. To allow a party to submit for the first 
time before the Court of Justice a plea 
which it has not submitted before the 
Court of First Instance would enable it 
to refer to the Court of Justice, which 
has limited jurisdiction on appeal, a 
broader case than that considered by 
the Court of First Instance. On appeal 
the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice 
is therefore limited to review of the 
findings of the Court of First Instance 
with regard to the pleas originally 
considered by that Court. 
(see para. 29) 
I - 5264 
CONSEIL NATIONAL DES PROFESSIONS DE L'AUTOMOBILE AND OTHERS V COMMISSION 
3. The condition laid down in the fourth 
paragraph of Article 230 EC that pro­
ceedings brought by a natural or legal 
person against a decision addressed to 
another person are admissible only if 
the decision is of direct and individual 
concern to the former raises an abso­
lute bar to proceeding which the Com­
munity judicature may consider at any 
time, even of its own motion. The 
seriousness of the alleged infringement 
by the institution concerned cannot, in 
any event, render inapplicable the rules 
on admissibility expressly laid down by 
the Treaty. 
(see para. 32) 
4. Where the application in the main 
proceedings is such that it must be 
declared inadmissible without going 
into the substance of the case, the 
Court of First Instance may, under 
Article 114(4) of its Rules of Proce­
dure, close the case before an applica­
tion to intervene has been allowed, 
even where the time-limit for making 
such an application has not yet expired. 
First, under Article 37 of the Statute of 
the Court of Justice, which, pursuant to 
Article 46 thereof, also applies to the 
Court of First Instance, submissions 
made in an application to intervene 
must be limited to supporting the form 
of order sought by one of the parties 
and, second, under Article 116(3) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
First Instance, the intervener must 
accept the case as he finds it at the 
time of his intervention. It follows that, 
where the application in the main 
proceedings in manifestly inadmissible, 
a third party cannot be held to be in a 
position to establish an interest in the 
result of the case or intervene in 
support of the form of order sought 
by one of the parties. 
(see paras 33-37) 
I - 5265