Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law - General principles of law - Right to sound administration - Diligent and impartial treatment of complaints - Reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))

2. Competition - Administrative procedure - Commission's obligations - Obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination of complaints - Procedural rights of persons concerned - No impact

(EC Treaty, Arts 85, 86, 90 and 93 (now Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 86 EC and 88 EC) and Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC))

3. Competition - Public undertakings and undertakings to which the Member States grant special or exclusive rights - Commission's powers under its duty of supervision - Discretion - Different from Commission's discretion as to whether to bring Treaty-infringement proceedings

(EC Treaty, Arts 90(3) and 169 (now Arts 86(3) EC and 226 EC))

4. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Commission's refusal to continue the examination of a complaint in which it is requested to take action under Article 90(3) of the Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) - Admissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 90(3) (now Art. 86(3) EC))

5. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

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

Summary

1. The diligent and impartial treatment of a complaint is associated with the right to sound administration which is one of the general principles that are observed in a State governed by the rule of law and are common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States. Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000 confirms that [e]very person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.

( see para. 48 )

2. The Commission's general duty of supervision and its corollary, the obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination of complaints submitted to it, must apply, as a matter of principle, without distinction in the context of Articles 85, 86, 90 and 93 of the Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC, 86 EC and 88 EC) and Article 92 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC), even though the precise manner in which such obligations are discharged varies according to the specific areas to which they apply and, in particular, to the procedural rights expressly conferred by the Treaty or by secondary Community law in those areas to the persons concerned.

( see para. 53 )

3. Articles 90(3) and 169 of the Treaty (now Articles 86(3) EC and 226 EC) both give rise to procedures involving the Commission and a Member State, in which the Commission performs its general duty of supervision under Article 155 of the Treaty (now Article 211 EC). However, whilst under Article 169 of the Treaty the Commission may commence Treaty-infringement proceedings against a Member State, Article 90(3) of the same Treaty provides that the Commission is to adopt the appropriate measures where necessary. Those words clarify the power granted to the Commission by Article 90(3) of the Treaty and thereby indicate that the Commission must be in a position to decide as to the necessity of its intervention, which in turn implies that it has a duty to undertake a diligent and impartial examination of complaints, on completion of which it regains its discretion as to whether there are grounds for conducting an investigation and, if there are, for taking measures against the Member State or States concerned. In contrast to the position regarding its decisions to commence Treaty-infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, the Commission's power to apply Article 90(3) of the Treaty is thus not entirely discretionary.

( see para. 54 )

4. The fact that the Commission enjoys a broad discretion regarding the application of Article 90(3) of the Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) does not in itself prevent an action being brought for annulment of a decision refusing to continue the examination of a complaint concerning the taking of action under that article of the Treaty, particularly where such a decision is addressed to the author of the complaint. An action for annulment brought by a complainant against the measure embodying the Commission's decision not to take action against a Member State on the basis of Article 90(3) of the Treaty is therefore admissible.

( see paras 64, 71 )

5. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) 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 in order to defend their rights and to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review.

( see para. 78 )