Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Obligation to adopt measures to comply with the judgment - Scope - Regard to be had to both the grounds and the operative part of the judgment

(Art. 233 EC)

2. Actions for annulment - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Annulment of a Commission decision granting an exemption under Article 81(3) EC - Possibility of the Commission going back on its position concerning the application of Article 81(1) EC - Conditions

(Arts 81(1) EC, 230 EC and 233 EC)

3. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decision applying the competition rules

(Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

4. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Obligations of the Commission

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3; Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 6)

5. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Assessment of the seriousness of the alleged interferences with competition and the persistence of their consequences - Practices having ceased - Duty of the Commission to ascertain whether anti-competitive effects continue

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

Summary

1. When the Community judicature annuls an act of an institution, that institution is required, under Article 233 EC, to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment. In that connection, in order to comply with the judgment and to implement it fully, the institution is required to observe not only the operative part of the judgment but also the grounds which led to the judgment and constitute its essential basis, inasmuch as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure.

( see para. 35 )

2. Where, in a judgment annulling a Commission decision granting an exemption under Article 81(3) EC, the Court of First Instance does not rule on the application of Article 81(1) EC, the annulling judgment cannot have the effect of preventing the Commission from going back on its position concerning the application of Article 81(1) EC. Such a change of position does, however, require a statement of reasons.

It is not for the Court of First Instance, in the context of an action for the annulment of an exemption decision brought pursuant to Article 230 EC, to raise of its own motion the plea concerning application of Article 81(1) EC.

( see paras 41-42 )

3. The statement of reasons on which a decision adversely affecting a person is based must, first, be such as to enable the person concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that, if necessary, he can defend his rights and verify whether the decision is well founded and, secondly, enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review as to the legality of the decision. In that connection, the Commission is not obliged, in stating the reasons for the decisions which it takes to ensure the application of the competition rules, to adopt a position on all the arguments relied on by the persons concerned but need only set out the facts and legal considerations which are of decisive importance in the context of the decision.

( see para. 44 )

4. In the context of investigating applications submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 17, although the Commission cannot be compelled to conduct an investigation, the procedural safeguards provided for by Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 oblige it nevertheless to examine carefully the factual and legal particulars brought to its notice by the complainant in order to decide whether they disclose conduct of such a kind as to distort competition in the common market and affect trade between the Member States.

Although the Commission is not obliged to investigate each of the complaints lodged with it, once it decides to proceed with an investigation, it must, in the absence of a duly substantiated statement of reasons, conduct it with the requisite care, seriousness and diligence so as to be able to assess with full knowledge of the case the factual and legal particulars submitted for its appraisal by the complainants.

( see paras 58-59 )

5. When examining complaints, the Commission is required to assess in each case how serious the alleged interferences with competition are and how persistent their consequences are. That obligation means in particular that it must take into account the duration and extent of the infringements complained of and their effect on the competition situation in the Community.

Therefore, in deciding to dismiss a complaint of practices allegedly contrary to the Treaty, the Commission cannot rely solely on the fact that those practices have ceased, without having ascertained whether anti-competitive effects still continue.

( see paras 64-65 )