Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:368
Date: 2018-06-20
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Dominant position
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 20 June 2018 1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission’s power of inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Clear indication of the evidence suggesting an infringement — Judicial review — Obligation on the General Court to check substantively the content of the said indicia — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) 2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Possibility of the undertaking concerned fully relying on those rights only after the sending of the statement of objections — Obligation on the Commission to inform the undertaking of the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation at the stage of the first measure taken against it (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18 and 20) 3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission’s power of inspection — Use of an inspection decision — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Observance of the principle of proportionality (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18 and 20(4)) 4. Competition — Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and national competition authorities — Right of the Commission to decide to carry out an inspection in a case under examination by a national competition authority and to order additional checks — Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — None (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003) 5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission’s power of inspection — Invasion of privacy — Lawfulness — Conditions (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 52(1) and (3); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) 1. The need for protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by the public authorities in the sphere of private activities of any person, whether natural or legal, is recognised as a general principle of law of the European Union. Consequently, with a view to observing that general principle, an inspection decision must be directed at gathering the necessary documentary evidence to check the actual existence and scope of a given factual and legal situation concerning which the Commission already possesses certain information, constituting reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement of the competition rules. In other words, having reasonable grounds for suspecting infringement of the competition rules is a prerequisite for the Commission to order an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Likewise, also in accordance with that general principle, the terms of a decision ordering an inspection must not exceed the scope of the infringement which may be suspected on such grounds. It follows that, inasmuch as the statement of reasons for that decision circumscribes the powers conferred on the Commission’s agents, that general principle precludes wordings, in inspection decisions, that would extend the scope of those powers beyond that arises from the reasonable grounds which the Commission has at its disposal on the date of adoption of such a decision. In that context, the determination whether the Commission had reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement of the competition rules before the adoption of an inspection decision is not the only means by which the Court can ensure that inspection decisions are not arbitrary. The review of the statement of reasons on which a decision is based also allows the courts to ensure that the principle of protection against arbitrary and disproportionate intervention is respected, in so far as the statement of reasons makes it possible to show that the intervention envisaged on the premises of the undertakings concerned is justified. Accordingly, in circumstances where the General Court considers that the presumed facts that the Commission intends to investigate, together with the matters to which the inspection must relate, are defined sufficiently precisely in its decision ordering an inspection, the Court may conclude that an inspection decision was not arbitrary, without it being necessary to check substantively the content of the indicia in the Commission’s possession at the date of adoption of the decision. By contrast, when the reasons stated in an inspection decision alone do not make it possible to presume that, on the date of adoption of that decision, the Commission did indeed have reasonable grounds to suspect an infringement such as that described in that decision, the General Court must examine the indicia in the Commission’s possession or other evidence which may establish the existence of such grounds and whether they are reasonable. (see paras 34-37, 41, 50, 51, 54-56, 65) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 45, 46, 179-181) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 113-116) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 119, 120, 154-156) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 169-175)