62017TJ0254_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 5 October 2020 – Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission
(Case T‑254/17)
(Competition – Cartels – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an inspection – Plea of illegality of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Right to an effective remedy – Equality of arms – Obligation to state reasons – Right to inviolability of the home – Reasonable grounds – Evidence of participation in the suspected infringements – Proportionality)
1.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to an effective remedy – System of legal remedies satisfying conditions of effectiveness, efficiency, certainty and reasonable time
(Arts 263, 268, 277, 278 and 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 157(2); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(1) and (4))
(see paras 54-79)
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 inspection 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, Art. 20)
(see paras 81-97)
3.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Decision ordering an inspection – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Specification in the inspection decision of evidence that the Commission has sufficiently strong evidence for suspicion of infringement – Obligation to disclose that evidence – Absence
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paras 107-112, 120-125)
4.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Decision ordering an inspection – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Obligation to indicate precisely the suspected infringement period – Absence
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paras 127-129)
5.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to inviolability of the home – Decision ordering an inspection – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Duration of the inspection – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Assessment a posteriori
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 7 and Art. 52(1) and (3); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paras 158-162)
6.
Judicial proceedings – Time limit for producing evidence – Production of evidence after the expiry of the time limit for replying set by a measure of organisation of procedure – Requirement of valid justification for the delay – Absence – Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(1) and (3))
(see paras 175-183)
7.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to inviolability of the home – Obligation on the Commission to have sufficiently strong evidence for suspicion of infringement – Form of evidence justifying the decision to inspect – Failure to open an investigation before the inspection decision – Interviews prior to the opening of the investigation – Obligation to record or formally to transcribe those interviews – Absence
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 19(1); Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 3(1) and (3))
(see paras 190-218)
8.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to inviolability of the home – Obligation on the Commission to have sufficiently strong evidence for suspicion of infringement – Submitters of evidence which justified the inspection decision – Supplier having close links with the presumed perpetrators of the infringement – Whether permissible
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paras 220-232)
9.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to inviolability of the home – Obligation on the Commission to have sufficiently strong evidence for suspicion of infringement – Tenor of the evidence justifying the decision to inspect – Rules of evidence specific to concerted practices – Consequence – Threshold for recognition of the Commission having sufficiently strong evidence lying below that necessary to a finding of a concerted practice
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paras 233-242)
10.
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to inviolability of the home – Obligation on the Commission to have sufficiently strong evidence for suspicion of infringement – Tenor of the evidence justifying the decision to inspect – Exchange of information between competitors – Public information – Lack of sufficiently strong evidence – Infringement of the right to inviolability of the home
(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))
(see paras 264-281)
Re:
Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1056 final of 9 February 2017, ordering the applicant and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 – Tute 1).
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls Article 1(b) of Decision C(2017) 1056 final of 9 February 2017, ordering Intermarché Casino Achats and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 – Tute 1);
2.
Dismisses the action for the remainder;
3.
Orders Intermarché Casino Achats, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.