62019CO0418_INF
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 — Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission
(Case C‑418/19 P)
(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Agreements between undertakings — Market in metal packaging — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 2(1) –Decision to initiate a proceeding — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Act not open to challenge — Effective judicial protection — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
1.
Appeal —Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Scope of the obligation to state reasons
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 58, first para.)
(see paras 30-34)
2.
Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision to initiate an administrative proceeding under the competition rules — Decision affecting only the procedural situation of the undertaking that is the subject of the inquiry — No deprivation of procedural rights, effect on the Commission’s power or modification of the applicable material control criterion — Precluded — Interruption of the limitation period under national law — Irrelevant
(Arts 101 and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 11(6); Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 2(1))
(see paras 35-38, 48, 52, 57, 75)
3.
Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Whether that condition can be set aside by invoking the right to effective judicial protection — Absence — Alleged insufficiency of the legal remedies available at a national level — Irrelevant
(Arts 6(1), third para., TEU; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))
(see paras 44, 62-65, 82)
4.
Appeal —Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))
(see paras 71, 72)
5.
Appeal — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paras 83, 84)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
2.
Silgan Closures GmbH and Silgan Holdings Inc. shall bear their own costs.