62023TJ0306_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2025 –Red Bull and Others v Commission
(Case T‑306/23)
(Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Abuse of dominant position – Energy drinks sector – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an inspection – Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Obligation to state reasons – Sufficiently serious indicia – Suspicion of an infringement – Proportionality)
1.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Identification of the contested measure – No formal identification in the application – Inadmissibility
(Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))
(see paragraphs 26, 27)
2.
Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Claim for a declaratory judgment – Inadmissibility
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 28-30)
3.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Decision ordering an inspection – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Duty to specify the subject matter and purpose of the inspection – No obligation to provide a precise definition of the market – No obligation to carry out a legal classification of the presumed infringements – No obligation to indicate the suspected period of infringement
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paragraphs 40-49, 53, 54, 108)
4.
Action for annulment – Review of legality – Criteria – Commission decision ordering an inspection – Illegality occurring in the context of the implementation of that decision – No effect on the legality of the decision ordering the inspection
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paragraphs 62, 130-133, 146-151)
5.
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 – No obligation to assess all exculpatory evidence – Judicial review – Scope
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paragraphs 68-82, 91-93)
6.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Use of an inspection decision – Discretion of the Commission – Limits – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Necessity of the inspection – Need to gather evidence of possible infringements of competition rules
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paragraphs 118-129)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull France SASU and Red Bull Nederland BV to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.