Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Order of priority fixed by the Commission - Obligation to give a statement of reasons - Refusal by the Commission to continue examination of a complaint on the basis that the practices complained of ceased after the complaint was lodged - Insufficient reasons for taking no action

(EC Treaty, Art. 89(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 85(1) EC))

2. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Account taken of the Community interest in the investigation of a case - Factors to be considered

(EC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86 (now Arts 81 and 82 EC))

3. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decisions - Curing a defect in the statement of reasons during the proceedings before the Court - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

Summary

1. In order to perform its task of defining and implementing the orientation of Community competition policy, the Commission is entitled to give differing degrees of priority to the complaints brought before it. It follows that the Commission may not only decide the order in which complaints will be examined but also reject a complaint on the ground of lack of a sufficient Community interest in further investigation of the case.

The Commission's discretion in defining priorities is not unlimited however. Thus it is obliged to state reasons if it declines to continue with the investigation of a complaint, and the reasons stated must be sufficiently precise and detailed to enable the Court of First Instance effectively to review the Commission's exercise of its discretion to define priorities. The purpose of that review is to ascertain whether or not the contested decision is based on materially incorrect facts, or is vitiated by an error of law, a manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers.

Moreover, when the Commission decides on priorities for dealing with the complaints brought before it, it may not regard as excluded in principle from its purview certain situations which fall within the task entrusted to it by the Treaty. In particular, having received a complaint of infringements of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC), the Commission is obliged to assess, on the basis of all the elements of fact and law obtained, the seriousness and duration of the alleged infringements and whether they continued to have effects, even if the allegedly abusive practices have ceased since the complaint was made.

( see paras 39-40, 42-44 )

2. In order to assess the Community interest in further investigation of a case, the Commission must take account of the circumstances of the case and must in particular balance the significance of the damage which the alleged infringement may cause to the functioning of the common market against the probability of its being able to establish the existence of the infringement and the extent of the investigative measures required for it to perform, under the best possible conditions, its task of ensuring that Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) are complied with.

( see para. 41 )

3. A decision must be sufficient in itself and the reasons on which it is based cannot derive from written or oral observations given subsequently when the decision is already the subject of proceedings before the Community judicature.

( see para. 54 )