Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1997:108
Date: 1997-07-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Concepts: General;Effects of a declaration that a measure is void;Revocation / Repeal
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Action brought against a decision confirming a decision which has 
not been contested within the time-limit — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173) 
2. Actions for annulment —Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Consequences of par­
tial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of 
the rules on competition — Annulment with regard to persons to whom the decision was 
addressed who did not bring an action for annulment — None 
(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 176 and 189) 
II - 1185 
SUMMARY — CASE T-227/95 
3. Actions for annulment —Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Consequences of par­
tial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of 
the rules on competition — Duty of the Commission to re-examine the decision in relation to 
persons to whom it was addressed who did not bring an action for annulment — Extent 
(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 176) 
4. Acts of the institutions — Withdrawal — Unlawful acts — Decision imposing fines for 
infringement of competition law — Conditions 
(Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15) 
5. Actions for annulment —Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Consequences of par­
tial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of 
the rules on competition — Conclusion of the Commission, after re-examining the decision, 
that findings of infringement against persons to whom the decision was addressed who had 
not brought an action for annulment were unlawful — Obligation to refund the fines paid in 
respect of the unlawful findings 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173) 
6. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Claims for an order 
that measures to comply with a judgment annulling a decision be taken and, in particular, 
that fines paid pursuant to the annulled decision be refunded — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 176) 
1. An action for the annulment of a decision 
which merely confirms a previous 
decision which has not been contested 
within the time-limit is inadmissible. 
2. There is no reason at all why the Com­
mission should not adopt a single 
decision covering several infringements of 
the rules on competition laid down in the 
Treaty, even if some of the undertakings 
to which it is addressed are unconnected 
with some of those infringements, pro­
vided that the decision permits each 
addressee to obtain a clear picture of the 
complaints made against it. 
Such a decision, although drafted and 
published in the form of a single decision, 
must be treated as a bundle of individual 
decisions making a finding or findings of 
infringement against each of the under­
takings to which it is addressed and, 
where appropriate, imposing a fine. 
Under Article 189 of the Treaty, each of 
those individual decisions is binding in its 
entirety on the undertaking to which it is 
addressed. Therefore, if an addressee has 
not brought an action under Article 173 
of the Treaty for annulment of the single 
decision in so far as that decision relates 
to it, the decision continues to be valid 
and binding on it. 
I I -1186 
ASSIDOMÄN KRAFT PRODUCTS AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
Accordingly, if an addressee decides to 
bring an action for annulment, the Com­
munity judicature has before it only the 
elements of the decision which relate to 
that addressee. The unchallenged ele­
ments of the decision relating to other 
addressees, on the other hand, do not 
form part of the subject-matter of the dis­
pute which the Court is called on to 
resolve. In an action for annulment, the 
Court can give judgment only on the 
subject-matter of the dispute referred to 
it by the parties. A single decision of that 
kind, therefore, can be annulled only as 
regards the addressees who have been 
successful in their actions before the 
Court. 
3. The wording of Article 176 of the Treaty 
does not support the conclusion that the 
obligation referred to in that provision is 
restricted solely to the legal positions of 
the parties to the dispute which have 
given rise to the judgment in question. 
Thus the possibility cannot be automati­
cally ruled out that the measures that the 
institution concerned must adopt may, in 
exceptional cases, extend beyond the spe­
cific context of the dispute which resulted 
in the judgment of annulment in order to 
eradicate the effects of the illegalities 
found in that judgment. 
In certain circumstances, the institution 
concerned may be required under Article 
176 of the Treaty to consider, pursuant to 
a request made within a reasonable 
period, whether it needs to take measures 
in relation not only to the successful par­
ties but also to the addressees of that act 
who did not bring an action for annul­
ment. Thus, where the effect of a judg­
ment of the Court of Justice is to set aside 
a rinding that Article 85(1) of the Treaty 
was infringed, on the ground that the 
concerted practice complained of was not 
proved, it would be inconsistent with the 
principle of legality for the Commission 
not to have a duty to examine its initial 
decision in relation to another party to 
the same concerted practice based on 
identical facts. 
The extent of such a duty must be deter­
mined in the light of both the operative 
part and the grounds of the judgment of 
annulment. In order to comply with a 
judgment of that kind and to implement 
it fully, the institution concerned is 
required to have regard not only to the 
operative part of the judgment but also to 
the grounds which led to the judgment 
and constitute its essential basis, in so far 
as they are necessary to determine the 
exact meaning of what is stated in the 
operative part. 
4. While there are no specific provisions 
governing the withdrawal or revocation 
of decisions adopted by the Commission 
under Articles 3 and 15 of Regula­
tion N o 17 finding that Articles 85 and 86 
of the Treaty have been infringed and 
imposing fines for such infringements, 
that regulation does not prevent the 
Commission from re-examining such a 
decision in relation to an individual when 
an element of it is unlawful. 
I I -1187 
SUMMARY — CASE T-227/95 
It has been acknowledged that, subject to 
the principles of the protection of legiti­
mate expectations and of legal certainty, 
the Community institutions are entitled 
to withdraw, on the ground that it is 
unlawful, a decision granting a benefit to 
its addressee. A fortiori, they are so 
entitled in situations where the decision 
in question merely imposes burdens or 
penalties on him. 
5. If the Commission should conclude, after 
re-examining a decision relating to pro­
ceedings for infringement of the rules on 
competition in the light of a judgment 
annulling that decision in part, that cer­
tain findings, to the effect that the 
addressees of the decision who did not 
bring an action for annulment had 
infringed Article 85 of the Treaty, were 
unlawful, not only is it authorized to 
refund the fines paid in accordance with 
those findings, but it is also required to 
do so, in accordance with the principles 
of legality and of good administration, if 
Article 176 is not to be deprived of all its 
practical effect. Repayment of the fines in 
question cannot be precluded by budget­
ary rules. Those rules, whose purpose is 
to ensure proper financial management 
within the institutions, may not be relied 
on to restrict the protection of the rights 
of individuals or to prevent the Commu­
nity institutions from complying with a 
judgment annulling an act. 
Claims in an action for annulment which 
seek an order requiring the Commission 
to take all the necessary measures to com­
ply with a judgment annulling a decision 
and, in particular, to refund fines paid 
pursuant to the annulled decision are 
inadmissible. 
The Community judicature, when exer­
cising the jurisdiction to annul acts con­
ferred on it by Article 173 of the Treaty, 
is not entitled to issue directions to the 
Community institutions. Furthermore, 
Article 176 of the Treaty provides for a 
division of powers between the judicial 
and administrative authorities, under 
which it is for the institution whose act 
has been declared void to determine what 
measures are required in order to comply 
with a judgment annulling an act and to 
exercise, subject to review by the Court, 
the discretion which it enjoys in that 
regard while respecting the operative part 
and grounds of the judgment which it is 
required to comply with and the provi­
sions of Community law. 
I I -1188