Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Statement of reasons for decisions to close the file - Obligation - Scope - Application, in relation to agreements, decisions and concerted practices necessary for attainment of the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty (now Article 33 EC), of the derogation from the competition rules available for agricultural products

(EC Treaty, Arts 39 and 190 (now Arts 33 EC and 253 EC); Council Regulation No 26, Art. 2(1))

2. Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Absence or inadequacy of reasons stated - Issue that must be raised of the Court's own motion - Manifest error of appraisal - Issue which may be examined by the Court only if it is raised by the applicant

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230) and Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

3. Appeals - Pleas in law - Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law - Operative part well founded on other legal grounds - Dismissed

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

4. Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct or individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

So far as concerns, in particular, a Commission decision rejecting a complaint in a competition matter on the basis of the first sentence of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 26, the statement of reasons on which the decision is based must show how the agreement between the members of a cooperative satisfies each of the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty (now Article 33 EC) or how the Commission was able to reconcile those objectives so as to enable that derogating provision, which must be interpreted strictly, to be applied.

( see paras 93-94 )

2. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) and manifest error of assessment are two distinct pleas, each of which may be raised in proceedings under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC). The first, alleging absence of reasons or inadequacy of the reasons stated, goes to an issue of infringement of essential procedural requirements within the meaning of that article and, involving a matter of public policy, must be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion. By contrast, the second, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested decision, is concerned with infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaty within the meaning of Article 173 itself, and can be examined by the Community judicature only if it is raised by the applicant.

( see para. 114 )

3. Where the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law, but its operative part appears to be well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed.

( see para. 121 )

4. Under Articles 168a of the Treaty (now Article 225 EC), and 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

The Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction, first, to make a finding as to the facts, save where the substantive inaccuracy of such findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.

( see paras 138-139 )