Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:170
Date: 2000-03-30
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Plants and flowers;Concerted practices;Dominant position
Concepts: Appeals;Pleas in law;Bringing matters before the Commission;Rules on competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Statement 
of reasons for decisions to close the file — Obligation — Scope — Application, in 
relation to agreements, decisions and concerted practices necessary for attainment of 
the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty (now Article 33 EC), of the 
derogation from the competition rules available for agricultural products 
(EC Treaty, Arts 39 and 190 (now Arts 33 EC and 253 EC); Council Regulation 
No 26, Art. 2(1)) 
I -2061 
SUMMARY — CASE C-265/97 P 
2. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Absence or inadequacy of reasons stated — 
Issue that must be raised of the Court's own motion — Manifest error of appraisal — 
Issue which may be examined by the Court only if it is raised by the applicant 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230) and Art. 190 (now Art. 253 
EC)) 
3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of 
Community law — Operative part well founded on other legal grounds — Dismissed 
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 
4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — 
Dismissed 
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 
1. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 190 of the Treaty (now Arti­
cle 253 EC) must be appropriate to the 
act at issue and must disclose in a clear 
and unequivocal fashion the reasoning 
followed by the institution which 
adopted the measure in question in 
such a way as to enable the persons 
concerned to ascertain the reasons for 
the measure and to enable the compe­
tent Community court to exercise its 
power of review. The requirements to 
be satisfied by the statement of reasons 
depend on the circumstances of each 
case, in particular the content of the 
measure in question, the nature of the 
reasons given and the interest which 
the addressees of the measure, or other 
parties to whom it is of direct or 
individual concern, may have in 
obtaining explanations. It is not neces­
sary for the reasoning to go into all the 
relevant facts and points of law, since 
the question whether the statement of 
reasons meets the requirements of 
Article 190 of the Treaty must be 
assessed with regard not only to its 
wording but also to its context and to 
all the legal rules governing the matter 
in question. 
So far as concerns, in particular, a 
Commission decision rejecting a com­
plaint in a competition matter on the 
basis of the first sentence of Arti­
cle 2(1) of Regulation No 26, the state­
ment of reasons on which the decision 
is based must show how the agreement 
between the members of a cooperative 
satisfies each of the objectives of Arti­
cle 39 of the Treaty (now Article 33 
EC) or how the Commission was able 
to reconcile those objectives so as to 
enable that derogating provision, 
which must be interpreted strictly, to 
be applied. 
(see paras 93-94) 
2. Infringement of Article 190 of the 
Treaty (now Article 253 EC) and man­
ifest error of assessment are two dis­
tinct pleas, each of which may be raised 
in proceedings under Article 173 of the 
Treaty (now, after amendment, Arti-
I - 2062 
VBA V FLORIMEX AND OTHERS 
cle 230 EC). The first, alleging absence 
of reasons or inadequacy of the reasons 
stated, goes to an issue of infringement 
of essential procedural requirements 
within the meaning of that article 
and, involving a matter of public 
policy, must be raised by the Commu­
nity judicature of its own motion. By 
contrast, the second, which goes to the 
substantive legality of the contested 
decision, is concerned with infringe­
ment of a rule of law relating to the 
application of the Treaty within the 
meaning of Article 173 itself, and can 
be examined by the Community judi­
cature only if it is raised by the 
applicant. 
(see para. 114) 
3. Where the grounds of a judgment of 
the Court of First Instance reveal an 
infringement of Community law, but 
its operative part appears to be well 
founded on other legal grounds, the 
appeal must be dismissed. 
(see para. 121) 
4. Under Articles 168a of the Treaty (now 
Article 225 EC), and 51 of the Statute 
of the Court of Justice, an appeal may 
be based only on grounds relating to 
the infringement of rules of law, to the 
exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. 
The Court of First Instance alone has 
jurisdiction, first, to make a finding as 
to the facts, save where the substantive 
inaccuracy of such findings is apparent 
from the documents submitted to it 
and, second, to assess those facts. 
(see paras 138-139) 
I - 2063