Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — EFIM v Commission

(Case C‑56/12 P)

‛Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Ink cartridge market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC — Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 21-24, 40, 41, 44, 47, 64)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 39, 43, 47, 63, 66, 108)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Determination of priorities by the Commission — Commission’s duty to adopt a decision as to the existence of an infringement — No such duty — Taking account of the Union’s interest in investigating the case — Discretionary power of the Commission — Obligation to state reasons for the decision to close the file — Scope — Judicial review — Limits (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 57-61, 71, 72, 82-89)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 76, 97)

5. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1)) (see para. 109)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T‑296/09 EFIM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C‑3/39.391 concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges — Powers of the Commission — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints — No Community interest — Proportionality — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Commission Notice on the handling of complaints.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — EFIM v Commission

(Case C‑56/12 P)

‛Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Ink cartridge market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC — Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Requirement that criticism of the reasoning of the General Court be specific (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 21-24, 40, 41, 44, 47, 64)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 39, 43, 47, 63, 66, 108)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Determination of priorities by the Commission — Commission’s duty to adopt a decision as to the existence of an infringement — No such duty — Taking account of the Union’s interest in investigating the case — Discretionary power of the Commission — Obligation to state reasons for the decision to close the file — Scope — Judicial review — Limits (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 57-61, 71, 72, 82-89)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 76, 97)

5. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1)) (see para. 109)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T‑296/09 EFIM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C‑3/39.391 concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges — Powers of the Commission — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints — No Community interest — Proportionality — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Commission Notice on the handling of complaints.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;