Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Action brought against a decision confirming a decision which has not been contested within the time-limit - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2 Actions for annulment - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Consequences of partial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of the rules on competition - Annulment with regard to persons to whom the decision was addressed who did not bring an action for annulment - None

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 176 and 189)

3 Actions for annulment - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Consequences of partial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of the rules on competition - Duty of the Commission to re-examine the decision in relation to persons to whom it was addressed who did not bring an action for annulment - Extent

(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 176)

4 Acts of the institutions - Withdrawal - Unlawful acts - Decision imposing fines for infringement of competition law - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15)

5 Actions for annulment - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Consequences of partial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of the rules on competition - Conclusion of the Commission, after re-examining the decision, that findings of infringement against persons to whom the decision was addressed who had not brought an action for annulment were unlawful - Obligation to refund the fines paid in respect of the unlawful findings

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

6 Actions for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Community judicature - Claims for an order that measures to comply with a judgment annulling a decision be taken and, in particular, that fines paid pursuant to the annulled decision be refunded - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 176)

Summary

7 An action for the annulment of a decision which merely confirms a previous decision which has not been contested within the time-limit is inadmissible.

8 There is no reason at all why the Commission should not adopt a single decision covering several infringements of the rules on competition laid down in the Treaty, even if some of the undertakings to which it is addressed are unconnected with some of those infringements, provided that the decision permits each addressee to obtain a clear picture of the complaints made against it.

Such a decision, although drafted and published in the form of a single decision, must be treated as a bundle of individual decisions making a finding or findings of infringement against each of the undertakings to which it is addressed and, where appropriate, imposing a fine. Under Article 189 of the Treaty, each of those individual decisions is binding in its entirety on the undertaking to which it is addressed. Therefore, if an addressee has not brought an action under Article 173 of the Treaty for annulment of the single decision in so far as that decision relates to it, the decision continues to be valid and binding on it.

Accordingly, if an addressee decides to bring an action for annulment, the Community judicature has before it only the elements of the decision which relate to that addressee. The unchallenged elements of the decision relating to other addressees, on the other hand, do not form part of the subject-matter of the dispute which the Court is called on to resolve. In an action for annulment, the Court can give judgment only on the subject-matter of the dispute referred to it by the parties. A single decision of that kind, therefore, can be annulled only as regards the addressees who have been successful in their actions before the Court.

9 The wording of Article 176 of the Treaty does not support the conclusion that the obligation referred to in that provision is restricted solely to the legal positions of the parties to the dispute which have given rise to the judgment in question. Thus the possibility cannot be automatically ruled out that the measures that the institution concerned must adopt may, in exceptional cases, extend beyond the specific context of the dispute which resulted in the judgment of annulment in order to eradicate the effects of the illegalities found in that judgment.

In certain circumstances, the institution concerned may be required under Article 176 of the Treaty to consider, pursuant to a request made within a reasonable period, whether it needs to take measures in relation not only to the successful parties but also to the addressees of that act who did not bring an action for annulment. Thus, where the effect of a judgment of the Court of Justice is to set aside a finding that Article 85(1) of the Treaty was infringed, on the ground that the concerted practice complained of was not proved, it would be inconsistent with the principle of legality for the Commission not to have a duty to examine its initial decision in relation to another party to the same concerted practice based on identical facts.

The extent of such a duty must be determined in the light of both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment of annulment. In order to comply with a judgment of that kind and to implement it fully, the institution concerned is required to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds which led to the judgment and constitute its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part.

10 While there are no specific provisions governing the withdrawal or revocation of decisions adopted by the Commission under Articles 3 and 15 of Regulation No 17 finding that Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty have been infringed and imposing fines for such infringements, that regulation does not prevent the Commission from re-examining such a decision in relation to an individual when an element of it is unlawful.

It has been acknowledged that, subject to the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, the Community institutions are entitled to withdraw, on the ground that it is unlawful, a decision granting a benefit to its addressee. A fortiori, they are so entitled in situations where the decision in question merely imposes burdens or penalties on him.

11 If the Commission should conclude, after re-examining a decision relating to proceedings for infringement of the rules on competition in the light of a judgment annulling that decision in part, that certain findings, to the effect that the addressees of the decision who did not bring an action for annulment had infringed Article 85 of the Treaty, were unlawful, not only is it authorized to refund the fines paid in accordance with those findings, but it is also required to do so, in accordance with the principles of legality and of good administration, if Article 176 is not to be deprived of all its practical effect. Repayment of the fines in question cannot be precluded by budgetary rules. Those rules, whose purpose is to ensure proper financial management within the institutions, may not be relied on to restrict the protection of the rights of individuals or to prevent the Community institutions from complying with a judgment annulling an act.

12 Claims in an action for annulment which seek an order requiring the Commission to take all the necessary measures to comply with a judgment annulling a decision and, in particular, to refund fines paid pursuant to the annulled decision are inadmissible.

The Community judicature, when exercising the jurisdiction to annul acts conferred on it by Article 173 of the Treaty, is not entitled to issue directions to the Community institutions. Furthermore, Article 176 of the Treaty provides for a division of powers between the judicial and administrative authorities, under which it is for the institution whose act has been declared void to determine what measures are required in order to comply with a judgment annulling an act and to exercise, subject to review by the Court, the discretion which it enjoys in that regard while respecting the operative part and grounds of the judgment which it is required to comply with and the provisions of Community law.