Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 29 June 1995. - Solvay SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Market-sharing agreement - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Authentication of a decision adopted by the college of Commissioners. - Case T-31/91.



European Court reports 1995 Page II-01821

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Grounds



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Submission of new pleas in law during the course of the proceedings ° Relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure laying down neither a time-limit nor any particular formality ° No time bar

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2))

2. Actions for annulment ° Pleas in law ° Infringement of essential procedural requirements ° Notification, in breach of the Commission' s Rules of Procedure, of a decision not previously authenticated

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission' s Rules of Procedure, Art. 12)

3. Actions for annulment ° Pleas in law ° Infringement of essential procedural requirements ° Regularization after an action has been brought ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1. Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance lays down neither a time-limit nor any particular formality for the submission of a new plea in law, where such a submission is admissible; in particular, it does not provide that, if it is not to be time-barred, such a submission must be made immediately, or within a particular period, after the matters of fact or of law to which it refers come to light. Since the submission of a plea in law is involved, a time bar, restricting the ability of the party concerned to put forward all matters necessary for the success of its claims, should not in principle be admitted unless it is the subject of express, unequivocal rules.

2. The authentication of acts provided for in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Commission' s Rules of Procedure, which must take place after their adoption by the college of Commissioners and before their notification or publication, is intended to guarantee legal certainty by ensuring that the text adopted by the college of Commissioners becomes fixed in the languages which are binding. Accordingly, in the event of a dispute, authentication enables it to be verified that the texts notified or published correspond precisely to the text adopted and so with the intention of the author. It therefore follows that authentication constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty and that a decision notified without having been authenticated is vitiated by a material defect, irrespective of whether there is any discrepancy between the text adopted and the one published or notified.

3. Once an action contesting a measure vitiated by infringement of essential procedural requirements has been lodged, it is not possible for the institution which adopted that measure to cure that defect simply by taking the step of retroactive regularization, for example by authenticating a measure which had been notified without completion of that formal step.

That is especially true where a decision is involved which imposes a fine on the applicant, because regularization carried out after the action had been brought would remove ex post facto any basis for a plea alleging such a defect. Such an approach would impair legal certainty and be contrary to the interests of persons affected by a decision imposing a fine.

Parties

In Case T-31/91,

Solvay SA, formally Solvay et Cie SA, a company incorporated under Belgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont, Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, and, during the oral procedure, by Paul-Alain Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Berend Jan Drijber, of the Legal Service, acting as Agent, and Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision No 91/298/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-B: Soda-ash ° Solvay, CFK, OJ 1991 L 152, p. 16),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça, President, D.P.M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

Grounds

(The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced.)

hereby:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 91/298/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-B: Soda-ash ° Solvay, CFK) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.