Case46/87R
Hoechst AG
v
Commission oftheEuropean Communities
(Competition —Commission investigation —Periodic penalty payments )
OrderofthePresident oftheCourt,26March1987 1549
Summary oftheOrder
Interim measures —Suspension ofoperation —Conditions for granting —Measures not
prejudging thedecision onthesubstance ofthecase—No manifest illegality whichperse
requires thesuspension oftheoperation ofthedecision —Serious and irreparable damage
(EEC Treaty ,Art.185;Rules ofProcedure ,Art,83(2))
ORDER OFTHEPRESIDENT OFTHECOURT
26March 1987*
InCase46/87R
Hoechst AG,acompany incorporated underGerman law,whoseregistered office
isat6230Frankfurt amMain80,represented byitsDirectors andbyH.
Hellmann ,Rechtsanwalt ,Cologne ,assisted atthehearing byMrSpitzer,withan
address forserviceinLuxembourg attheChambers ofMessrs Loesch&Wolter,
8rueZithe,
applicant ,
*Language ofthe Case :German .
1549

ORDER OF26.3.1987—CASE46/87R
v
Commission ofthe European Communities ,represented byitsAgent,N.Koch,its
LegalAdviser ,withanaddress forservice inLuxembourg attheofficeofG.
Kremlis ,amember ofitsLegalDepartment ,JeanMonnet Building ,Kirchberg ,
defendant ,
APPLICATION ,primarily ,foranordersuspending theoperation ofthe
Commission decisions of15January 1987ordering aninvestigation underArticle
14(3)ofRegulation No17oftheCouncil of6February 1962(Official Journal ,
English Special Edition 1959-62 ,p.87)andof3February 1987imposing periodic
penalty payments underArticle 16ofRegulation No17(CaseIV/31.865—PVC
andIV/31.866—Polyethylene ),
THEPRESIDENT OFTHECOURT OFJUSTICE
OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makesthefollowing
Order
1Byanapplication lodged attheCourtRegistry on16February 1987,Hoechst AG,
hereinafter referred toas'Hoechst' ,brought anactionunderthesecond paragraph
ofArticle 173oftheEECTreatyfortheannulment of:
(i)theCommission decision of15January 1987ordering aninvestigation under
Article 14(3)ofRegulation No17/62oftheCouncil of6February 1962,the
firstregulation implementing Articles 85and86oftheEECTreaty,and
(ii)theCommission decision of3February 1987imposing periodic penalty
payments underArticle 16ofRegulation No17/62.
2Byanapplication lodged attheCourtRegistry on18February 1987theapplicant
requested theCourt,underArticle 185oftheEECTreaty andArticle 83ofthe
RulesofProcedure ,tomakeaninterim orderprimarily forthesuspension ofthe
1550

HOECHST vCOMMISSION
operation ofthesaidCommission decisions of15January and3February 1987
untiltheCourthasgivenjudgment onthemainapplication .
3Thedefendant submitted itswritten observations on9March 1987.Theparties
presented oralargument on18March 1987.
4Before considering themeritsofthisapplication forinterim measures ,abrief
account should begivenofthebackground tothecaseandinparticular thefacts
whichledtheCommission toadoptthetwodecisions inquestion .
5TheCommission had,according toitsownaccount ,comeintothepossession of
information revealing theexistence ofagreements orconcerted practices between
certain producers andsuppliers ofPVCandpolyethylene ,including LDPE.Those
agreements orconcerted practices ,which hadnotbeennotified tothe
Commission ,fixedtheselling pricesandquotasorthesalesobjectives forthose
products intheEEC.
6Onthebasisoftheinformation initspossession ,theCommission considered that
therewasreasontobelieve thattheapplicant wasstillorhadbeenpartytothose
agreements andconcerted practices which,shouldtheirexistence beproved,might
constitute aserious infringement ofArticle 85(1)oftheEECTreaty.Ittherefore
decided toundertake aninvestigation pursuant toArticle 14(3)ofRegulation No
17oftheCouncil andforthatpurpose adopted thedecision of15January 1987.
7On20January 1987twoofficials authorized bytheCommission ,accompanied by
anofficial oftheBundeskartellamt (Federal CartelOffice),handed tothedirector
ofHoechst's legaldepartment theCommission decision of15January 1987
ordering aninvestigation underArticle 14(3)ofRegulation No17.Theofficial of
theBundeskartellamt atthesametimehanded himanauthorization inwriting and
anenforcement orderdated 16January 1987issuedbythePresident ofthe
Bundeskartellamt .Hoechst refused tosubmit totheinvestigation ontheground
thatthedecision bywhichitwasordered didnotsatisfy theminimum legal
1551

ORDER OF 26.3.1987 —CASE 46/87R
conditions laiddowninArticle 14(3)asregards thecontent ofsuchadecision
and,furthermore ,claimed apowernotprovided forinthatarticle,namely the
powertoconduct asearchwithout firstobtaining awarrant fromajudge.
8On22January 1987theCommission officials,accompanied byrepresentatives of
theBundeskartellamt andpoliceofficers,againpresented themselves atHoechst's
legaldepartment withaviewtoundertaking theinvestigation onthebasisofthe
decision of15January 1987.Itwasintended thatifHoechst refused tosubmitto
theinvestigation theofficials oftheBundeskartellamt shouldenforce theinvesti­
gation exofficiounderArticle 3oftheGerman Lawof17August 1967
implementing Regulation No17oftheCouncil,andinparticular Article 14(6)
thereof,subjectonly,itwouldappear,totherestriction thattheywerenotauth­
orizedtoobtaindocuments bymeansofasearch.
9Hoechst reiterated itsviewthatanyactiontakenbyCommission officials basedon
adecision toundertake aninvestigation suchasthatof15January 1987was,for
thereasons setoutinparagraph 7ofthisorder,toberegarded asunlawful .Its
representatives alsostatedthattheywouldnotactively oppose suchaninvesti­
gationbutwouldrefusetocooperate becauseitwasunlawful .TheCommission
officials stillinsisted onconducting anunrestricted investigation ,andthepolice
officers,interpreting thisasaclaimtomakeasearch,withdrew .
10On29January 1987theCommission sentatelexmessage toHoechst inwhichit
required thecompany tomakeadeclaration before2February 1987agreeing to
submittotheinvestigation ;ifitfailedtodoso,theCommission wouldimpose
uponitaperiodic penalty payment of1000ECUperdayfromthedateofnotifi­
cationofthedecision .
11Inreply,Hoechst repeated itsprevious pointofviewinaletterdated2February
1987.Inordertocompel Hoechst tosubmittotheinvestigation theCommission
therefore adopted,on3February 1987,adecision imposing uponitaperiodic
penalty payment pursuant toArticle 16(1)(d)ofRegulation No17ofthe
Council.
1552

HOECHST vCOMMISSION
12Atnational level,Hoechst applied totheVerwaltungsgericht (Administrative
Court)Frankfurt on23January 1987foraninterim injunction restraining the
Bundeskartellamt frommaking anysearchinimplementation oftheCommission
decision of15January 1987.OnthesamedaytheVerwaltungsgericht Frankfurt
granted aninterim injunction provisionally suspending theoperation ofthe
enforcement orderissuedbytheBundeskartellamt .TheBundeskartellamt then
appliedtotheAmtsgericht (LocalCourt)Frankfurt forasearchwarrant toenable
ittocompel Hoechst tosubmittotheinvestigation required bytheCommission .
TheAmtsgericht Frankfurt rejected thatapplication on12February 1987onthe
ground thatithadnotbeenapprised ofthefactsonthebasisofwhichthe
Commission haddecided toundertake theinvestigation insufficient detailto
enableittoverifywhether therewereinfactsubstantial grounds forbelieving that
therehadbeenaninfringement oftheprovisions oftheEECTreatyoncompe­
titionlaw.
13UnderArticle 185oftheEECTreatyactionsbrought beforetheCourtofJustice
donothavesuspensory effect.TheCourtmay,however ,ifitconsiders thecircum­
stances sorequire,orderthattheapplication ofthecontested measures be
suspended .
14Inorderforinterim measures suchasthoserequested tobegranted,Article83(2)
oftheRulesofProcedure requires thatapplications forsuchmeasures shouldstate
thecircumstances givingrisetourgency andthefactual andlegalgrounds estab­
lishingaprima faciecasefortheinterim measures appliedfor.
15TheCourthasconsistently heldthattheurgency ofanapplication forinterim
measures ,asreferred toinArticle 83(2)oftheRulesofProcedure ,mustbe
assessed onthebasisofwhether itisnecessary tograntsuchmeasures inorderto
avoidseriousandirreparable damage tothepartyseeking them.
16Inordertoestablish aprima faciecasejustifying thesuspension oftheoperation of
theCommission decision of15January 1987ordering aninvestigation ,the
applicant makestwosubmissions which,initsview,clearlyshowthatthatdecision
ismanifestly illegal.
1553

ORDER OF26.3.1987—CASE46/87R
17Thefirstsubmission isthatthedecision doesnotsatisfy theminimum legal
conditions imposed ,asregards itscontent ,byArticle 14(3)ofRegulation No17.
18Initssecond submission ,theapplicant claimsthatthecontested decision ordering
aninvestigation claims apowerwhichisnotmentioned inArticle 14(3),namely
thepowertosearchwithout firstobtaining asearchwarrant fromajudgeandthus
without anyjudicial control.According totheapplicant ,theCommission's
argument totheeffectthattheterm'investigation' inArticle 14mustinclude a
search,ifArticle 14isnottobedeprived ofpractical effect,hasnofoundation
whatever andiscontradicted bytheactualwording oftheprovision .Theapplicant
considers thatthefactthatamerereading ofthearticleshowsthatitdoesnot
provide anylegalfoundation forarightofsearchisinitselfsufficient toestablish
themanifest illegality ofthedecision .
19Furthermore ,theapplicant claimsthat,whether ornotArticle 14confers onthe
Commission arightofsearch,thecontested decision would inaddition be
manifestly unconstitutional ifitwerepermissible thereunder tocarryoutasearch
without thepriorissueofawarrant byajudge.Suchunconstitutionality results
fromthebreach ofthefundamental rightoflegalpersons totheinviolability of
theircommercial premises ,arightwhichformspartoftheconstitutional traditions
oftheMember Statesandthegeneral principles oflawwhichCommunity law
protects andtheobservance ofwhichisensured bytheCourtofJustice.
20Inordertoestablish aprima faciecasejustifying thesuspension oftheoperation of
theCommission decision of3February 1987imposing periodic penalty payments
pursuant toArticle 16ofRegulation No17,theapplicant claimsthatthedecision
bearsthemarkofmanifest illegality onaccount ofinfringement ofessential
procedural requirements ,failuretocomply withwhichrenders themeasure void.
Suchillegality arisesfromthefactthatthedecision wasadopted inmanifest
infringement :
(i)ofArticle 16(3)andparagraphs (3)to(6)ofArticle 10ofRegulation No17,
sincetheAdvisory Committee onRestrictive Practices andMonopolies was
notconsulted priortoitsadoption ,inspiteofthefactthatsuchconsultation is
expressly required bythereference contained inArticle 16(3);
(ii)ofArticle 19(1)ofRegulation No17,andofArticles 2(3)and7(1)of
Regulation No99/63/EECoftheCommission of25July1963onthe
hearings provided forinArticle 19(1)and(2)ofCouncil Regulation No17
1554

HOECHST vCOMMISSION
(Official Journal ,English Special Edition 1963-64 ,p.47)since,contrary to
thoseprovisions ,theCommission didnotsupply thestatement ofobjections
required byArticle 2(3)nordiditaffordtoHoechst theopportunity toput
forward itsarguments orally,asrequired byArticle 7(1),eventhough
Hoechst hadexpressly sorequested .
21TheCommission contends thattherearetwostagesintheprocedure forfixinga
periodic penalty payment .First,thepenalty payment isprovisionally fixed,byway
ofwarning ,anditisthenfixeddefinitively .Inthefirststage,adecision suchas
theoneinpointinthiscaseistakeninordertocompel anundertaking totake
certain measures orpayaperiodic penalty payment theamount ofwhichisfixed
inthatdecision .Iftheundertaking doesnottakethemeasures ,notwithstanding
thethreatofsuchaperiodic penalty payment ,asecond decision isadopted fixing
thedefinitive amount oftheperiodic penalty payment tobeimposed .Itisonlyin
thesecond stagethattheCommission isboundtosatisfytheaforesaid essential
procedural requirements prescribed ,failure tocomply withwhich renders the
decision void.
22Theapplicant claimsthatthebreach ofthefundamental rightoflegalpersons to
theinviolability oftheircommercial premises ,uponwhichitreliesasregards the
decision ordering aninvestigation ,alsoaffects thedecision imposing periodic
penalty payments ,sincethepurpose ofthosepayments istoimpose byforcea
searchwhich isunlawful andunconstitutional .Consequently ,theCommission
decision of3February 1987imposing periodic penalty payments isalsomanifestly
unconstitutional .
23Inordertoestablish theurgency ofitsapplication withinthemeaning ofArticle 83
(2)oftheRulesofProcedure ,theapplicant refersprimarily totheordermadeby
theCourtinJoined Cases60and190/81RIBM vCommission [1981]ECR1857.
Onthebasisofthatdecision ,theapplicant considers thatwhere ameasure of
Community law,thesuspension oftheoperation ofwhichisrequested ,appears on
aprima facieappraisal tobemanifestly illegal,itisnotevennecessary toexamine
thematerial ornon-material damage whichmayresultfromitsapplication .Inits
submission ,amanifestly unlawful measure always givesrisetothedanger of
serious andirreparable damage ,ifonlybecause itsimplementation undermines
confidence inthelegalsystem.Thesuspension oftheoperation ofsuchameasure
istherefore justified purelyintheinterests ofthecorrect application ofthelaw.If
itisclearfromthejudgments oftheCourtthatthemanifest illegality ofameasure
ofCommunity lawisasufficient basisforgranting arequest forthesuspension of
itsoperation ,afortiori thesameshould applywhere suchameasure isalso
manifestly unconstitutional .
1555

ORDER OF 26.3.1987 — CASE 46/87 R
24Theapplicant alsostresses thatthenon-material damage whichitwillsufferasa
resultoftheunconstitutionality ofthetwocontested decisions constitutes damage
whichcouldnotberepaired because theintegrity oftheprotection afforded tothe
fundamental rightinquestion wouldbebreached andcouldnotberestored ,after
theevent,eveniftheCommission werelaterforcedtoforgotheadvantage
obtained fromsuchbreach.Thedecision imposing periodic penalty payments
further causesitmaterial damage whichisincreasing byDM2000perday.
25Insubstance ,therefore ,theapplicant's arguments amount toclaiming thatthe
decisions whoseoperation itrequests theCourttosuspend aremarred bysuch
seriousandobvious defectsthatitisevident,evenatfirstsight,thattheylackany
legalbasisandaremanifestly illegal.Initssubmission ,byreasonsimplyofthe
natureandgravityoftheseillegalities itisnecessary andamatterofurgency that
thesituation resulting fromtheirapplication shouldbeterminated forthwith .That
submission acquires evengreaterforcewherethedecisions inquestion arenotonly
illegalbutalsomanifestly unconstitutional ,because afundamental rightforming
anintegral partofthegeneral principles oflawtheobservance ofwhichisensured
bytheCourtofJusticehasbeenbreached .'
26Itmusttherefore beconsidered whether inthiscasethearguments putforward by
theapplicant arecapable ofproviding prima facieevidence ofsuchillegality or
unconstitutionality .
27Asregards thefirstsubmission raisedconcerning thedecision of15January 1987,
itmustbeconsidered whether thecontent ofthedecision prima facieappears to
satisfytherequirements laiddowninArticle 14(3)ofRegulation No17,which
provides asfollows:
'Undertakings andassociations ofundertakings shallsubmittoinvestigations
ordered bydecision oftheCommission .Thedecision shallspecify thesubject-
matterandpurpose oftheinvestigation ,appoint thedateonwhichitistobegin
andindicate thepenalties provided forinArticle 15(1)(c)andArticle 16(1)(d)
andtherighttohavethedecision reviewed bytheCourtofJustice.'
1556

HOECHST vCOMMISSION
28Inthecontextofsuchanappraisal ,itmustbestatedthatthecontested decision
ordering aninvestigation prima facieseemstosatisfy thoseprocedural
requirements :
Article1andtherecitalsinthepreamble statethesubject-matter andpurposeof
theinvestigation :namely,toinvestigate whether ornotHoechst wasorisstilla
partytoagreements orconcerted practices between certainproducers andsuppliers
ofPVCandpolyethylene ,including LDPE,intheEEC,fixingthesellingprices
andquotasorsalesobjectives ofthoseproducts ,whichmightconstitute aserious
infringement ofArticle 85(1)oftheEECTreaty.
Articles 2and3andthefinalrecitalinthepreamble respectively statethedateon
whichtheinvestigation istobegin,therighttohavethedecision reviewed bythe
CourtofJustice andthepenalties provided forinArticle15(1)(c)andArticle16
(1)(d)intheeventofarefusaltosubmittosuchaninvestigation .
29Asregards thesecond submission challenging thedecision toorderaninvesti­
gationandthesubmission ,contesting thedecision imposing periodic penalty
payments ,ofinfringement ofessential procedural requirements ,whichraisesa
problem concerning theinterpretation ofArticle 16ofRegulation No17,itmust
bestatedthatconsideration ininterim proceedings oftheproblems raisedbythose
submissions wouldamounttoprejudging thesubstance ofthecase,whichwould
becontrary toaconsistent lineofdecisions oftheCourtinwhichithasheldthat
interim measures maybegranted onlyiftheydonotprejudge thedecision onthe
substance ofthecase(seeinparticular ,mostrecently ,theorderofthePresident of
theCourtof30April1986inCase62/86RAKZOvCommission [1986]ECR
1503).ThePresident oftheCourttherefore considers thatthesequestions maynot
beresolved inthecontextofinterim proceedings .Suchsubmissions therefore
cannot beregarded asdisclosing theexistence ofamanifest illegality .
30ThePresident oftheCourtconsiders thattheappraisal inparagraph 29ofthis
orderalsoappliestothecomplaint basedonthebreachofthefundamental right
oflegalpersonstotheinviolability oftheircommercial premises andreliedupon
bytheapplicant toestablish themanifest unconstitutionality bothofthedecision
ordering theinvestigation andofthedecision imposing periodic penalty payments .
1557

ORDER OF26.3.1987—CASE46/87R
31Onthegrounds setoutaboveitmustbefound,without prejudging thesubstance
ofthemainapplication ,thatthecontested decisions donotappear,inthelightof
thecomplaints madeagainst them,tobemeasures whichlackeventheappearance
oflegality orconstitutionality ,asmaintained bytheapplicant ,andwhose
operation mustforthatreason alonebesuspended forthwith .
32Itwastherefore fortheapplicant toputforward arguments capable ofdemon­
strating thatthereisanurgent needfortherequested measure tobegranted in
ordertopreventitfromsuffering serious andirreparable damage .
33Theonlysubmissions whichtheapplicant hasmadeandwhich aresetoutin
paragraph 24ofthisorderarenot,however ,capable ofestablishing thatsuchis
thecase.
34Indeed,iftheinvestigation werecarried outonthebasisofthedecision of15
January 1987andthatdecision weresubsequently annulled bytheCourtofJustice
intheexercise ofitspowers ofjudicial review,theCommission wouldinthatevent
beprevented fromusing,forthepurposes ofaproceeding inthematterofan
infringement ofArticle 85oftheEECTreaty,anydocumentary evidence whichit
mighthaveobtained inthecourseofthatinvestigation ,asotherwise thedecision
ontheinfringement mightbeannulled insofarasitwasbasedonsuchevidence .
35Furthermore ,thematerial damage ofDM2000perdaywhichwouldresultfrom
theimplementation ofthedecision imposing aperiodic penalty payment doesnot
seemlikelytocausetheapplicant serious andirreparable damage .Apartfromthe
gravedoubtswhichmaybeentertained astotheseriousness ofsuchdamage inthe
lightofwhatis,afterall,thetrifling amount which thatpenalty payment
represents whencompared withthesizeandturnover ofacompany suchas
Hoechst ,itmustalsobeaccepted thatevenassuming thedecision of3February
1987tobeanenforceable measure ,theCommission wouldbebound,should that
decision bedeclared voidbytheCourtinthemainproceedings ,torepaythe
amount received bywayofpenalty payments .Inthosecircumstances ittherefore
seemsscarcely possible toestablish thatsuchdamage wouldbeirreparable .
36Itfollows fromalltheconsiderations setoutabovethattheapplication forinterim
measures mustbedismissed .
1558

HOECHST vCOMMISSION
Onthosegrounds ,
THEPRESIDENT ,
bywayofinterim decision ,
herebyorders asfollows:
(1)Theapplication isdismissed ;
(2)Costsarereserved .
Luxembourg ,26March1987.
P.Heim
RegistrarA.J.Mackenzie Stuart
President
1559