Case T‑480/15

Agria Polska sp. z o.o. and Others

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Abuse of dominant position — Distribution of plant protection products market — Decision to reject a complaint — Alleged anticompetitive behaviour of producers and distributors — Concerted or coordinated action of lodging complaints, by producers and distributors, before administrative and criminal authorities — Reporting alleged infringements of the applicable rules by parallel importers — Administrative inspections subsequently carried out by the administrative authorities — Imposition of administrative and criminal penalties by national authorities on parallel importers — Assimilation of complaints by producers and distributors to vexatious actions or abuses of administrative procedures — Lack of European Union interest — Right to effective judicial protection)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 16 May 2017

Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — No obligation to conduct an investigation and rule by decision on the existence of an infringement — Previous dismissal of a similar complaint by a national competition authority — Irrelevant

Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Determination of priorities by the Commission — Account to be taken of the EU interest in investigating a case — Discretion of the Commission — Case contributing to the development of competition law

Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Decision of the Commission suspending the procedure — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Statement of reasons for the decision to take no action — Scope — Judicial review — Scope

See the text of the decision. (see paras 34-39)

Article 101 TFEU strictly precludes any direct or indirect contact between economic operators the object or effect of which is either to influence the conduct on the market of an actual or potential competitor or to disclose to such a competitor the course of conduct which they themselves have decided to adopt or contemplate adopting on the market. However, economic operators retain the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing and anticipated conduct of their competitors. Thus, undertakings may act, inter alia, in the defence of their legitimate interests in the event of infringement by their competitors of applicable provisions, such as regulations relating to trade in plant protection products. In that context, it may be legitimate for undertakings to inform the competent national authorities of possible infringements by their competitors of the provisions in force and, where appropriate, to cooperate with those authorities in the context of the inspections that they may carry out. (see paras 44, 47, 48)

The decisions of the national authorities to conduct off-site and on-site inspections and to institute administrative and criminal proceedings against undertakings suspected of illegal practices are attributable to those national authorities which act in the public interest and whose decisions fall, as such, within their discretion. Thus, such conduct and decisions by the authorities of the Member States fall outside the scope of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since those articles are intended to govern the conduct of undertakings only. The fact that those authorities were influenced in their decisions to carry out inspections by applications made to them by instructed law firms does not alter the fact that those decisions are decisions of national authorities. (see paras 49, 55)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 65-72)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 73)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 80-84)

Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 does not give a complainant the right to insist that the Commission take a final decision as to the existence or non-existence of alleged infringements of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, and does not oblige the Commission to continue the proceedings, whatever the circumstances, right up to the stage of a final decision, even where a complaint, similar to that lodged before it, has already been rejected, possibly erroneously, by a national competition authority. Furthermore, to accept that the Commission should systematically open an investigation in such circumstances would not be compatible with the objective of Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, which was to establish, with a view to ensuring effectiveness, an optimal allocation of resources within the European competition network. In any event, neither Regulation No 1/2003 nor the Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities creates rights or expectations for an undertaking to have its case dealt with by a specific competition authority in order, where appropriate, to benefit from the collection of evidence obtained by that authority by means of its powers of investigation. (see paras 94, 95)