Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Competition - Administrative proceedings - Investigation of complaints - Whether the Commission is under a duty to carry out an investigation - No such obligation - Decision to take no further action - Subject to judicial review

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3(2))

2 Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Meaning - Agreements within a group constituting a single economic unit - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

3 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

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

4 Competition - Dominant position - Rights of authorship - Exercise of that right - Abuse

(EC Treaty, Art. 86 (now Art. 82 EC))

Summary

1 Whilst the Commission is not under a duty to carry out an investigation when a complaint under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 is submitted to it, it is under a duty to consider carefully the factual and legal issues brought to its attention by the complainant, in order to assess whether those issues indicate conduct which is liable to distort competition within the common market and affect trade between Member States. Where the Commission has decided to reject the complaint without holding an investigation, the purpose of judicial review of legality by the Court of First Instance is to determine whether the contested decision is based on a correct assessment of the facts and is not vitiated by any error of law, manifest error of assessment or misuse of power.

2 An infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) necessarily results from collaboration by several undertakings.

In the case of undertakings which form a single economic unit within which they do not enjoy real autonomy in determining their course of action on the market, the prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the Treaty cannot apply to decisions taken within the group with a view to organising relations between the different parts of the group.

3 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

4 Whilst, as a rule, the enforcement of copyright by its holder, as in the case of the prohibition on importing certain products from outside the Community into a Member State of the Community, is not in itself a breach of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC), such enforcement may, in exceptional circumstances, involve abusive conduct.