Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:341
Date: 1999-12-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Dominant position
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Examples of abuse;Bringing matters before the Commission;Definition of undertaking
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France

summary of the facts, it observes that, in MF's information bulletins, 'Microsoft states that the software imported illegally is sold at a lower price and that if the French distributors had to sell at such prices, it would adversely affect their profit margins‘. 56. It is clear from the case-law that whilst, as a rule, the enforcement of copyright by its holder, as in the case of the prohibition on importing certain products from outside the Community in to a Member State of the Community, is not in itself a breach of Article 86 of the Treaty, such enforcement may, in exceptional circumstances, involve abusive conduct (Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P RTE and ITP v Commission [1995] ECR I-743, paragraphs 49 and 50). 57. In the present case, therefore, the Commission could not argue, without undertaking further investigation into the complaint, that the information in its possession at the time it adopted the contested decision did not constitute evidence of abusive conduct by Microsoft. In view of the obligations incumbent on it whenresponding to a complaint under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 (see above, paragraph 27), it ought, at the very least, to have ascertained whether or not the information put forward by the applicant on the basis of documents not devoid of probative value, was substantiated or not and checked, where appropriate, whether the particular circumstances of the case pointed to a breach of Article 86 of the Treaty. 58. The contested decision is, therefore, vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. 59. It follows from the foregoing that the second plea must be upheld, the application must be declared to be well founded and the contested decision rejecting the applicant's complaint must be annulled. Costs 60. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant, be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber), hereby: 1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 15 October 1998 (Case IV/36.219 Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the applicant's complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language editions of Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada from being imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC and 82 EC). 2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs. Jaeger Lenaerts Azizi Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 December 1999. H. Jung K. Lenaerts Registrar President 1: Language of the case: French.