EUR-Lex - 61994B0367(02) - EN
Avis juridique important
|
61994B0367(02)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 29 April 1998.
-
British Coal Corporation v Commission of the European Communities.
-
ECSC Treaty - Action for annulment of an implied decision of refusal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
-
Case T-367/94.
European Court reports 1998 Page II-00705
Summary
Keywords
Actions for annulment - Action brought by a coal producer against an implied decision of refusal by the Commission after it had been put on formal notice under Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty - Decision alleged to result from the Commission's failure to reject outright a complaint alleging breaches by that producer of the competition rules in the ECSC Treaty - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(d), 35, 65 and 66(7))
Summary
An action brought by a coal producer against an implied decision of refusal by the Commission allegedly resulting from the latter's failure, after being put on formal notice under Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty, to reject outright a complaint alleging that that producer breached Articles 4(d), 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.When such a complaint is brought before it, the Commission is not only not under an obligation to dismiss it without prior examination but is in fact required to carry out such an examination.
The obligation on the Commission to examine carefully the issues of fact and law which a complainant has brought to its attention in order to decide whether those elements point to conduct likely to distort competition within the common market must in particular be complied with where the Commission is acting within the context of the ECSC Treaty, in which it has exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, if the Commission were, following that examination, to adopt a decision rejecting the complaint, it would, in any event, be required to set out the facts and considerations underlying its conclusions, and any review as to legality would then have to consist of verifying that the decision was not based on substantively inaccurate facts or vitiated by an error of law, manifest error of assessment, misuse of powers or abuse of process.