Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance — Failure to identify the error in law relied on — Inadmissible — ( Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Competition — Agreements and concerted practices — Prohibition — Category exemptions — Regulation No 123/85 — Scope — Measure adopted by a motor vehicle manufacturer having the effect of partitioning the market — Excluded — ( EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) and (3) (now Art. 81(1) and (3) EC); Commission Regulation No 123/85)

3. Competition — Agreements and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Selective distribution system for motor vehicles — Call by the manufacturer to its authorised dealers forming part of overall business relations — Restrictions on supplies to dealers provided for under the dealership contract — ( EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

4. Competition — Fines — Prohibition on imposing fines in respect of acts taking place within the framework of a notified agreement — Scope — (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(5)(a))

5. Competition — Community rules — Infringements — Intentional infringements — Establishment of intention — (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

6. Acts of the institution — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision to apply the rules on competition — (EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

7. Appeal — Jurisdiction of the Court — Reappraisal, on grounds of fairness, of the assessment of the Court of First Instance as to the amount of fines imposed on undertakings — Excluded — ( EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

Summary

1. Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, it fails to satisfy the requirements as to a statement of reasons under Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of its Rules of Procedure. In reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which, under Article 56 of that Statute, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

see para. 47

2. A measure which is liable to partition the market between Member States cannot come under the provisions of Regulation No 123/85 that concern the obligations which a distributor may lawfully assume under a dealership contract. Although that regulation provides motor vehicle manufacturers with substantial means by which to protect their distribution systems, it does not authorise them to adopt measures which contribute to a partitioning of the market.

see para. 49

3. A call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to its authorised dealers is not a unilateral act which falls outside the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) but is an agreement within the meaning of that provision if it forms part of a set of continuous business relations governed by a general agreement drawn up in advance.

The implementation by a motor vehicle manufacturer of a policy of imposing supply quotas on dealers with the aim of restricting re-exports is not a unilateral act but rather an agreement within the meaning of that provision, inasmuch as the motor vehicle manufacturer, for the purpose of imposing that policy, uses clauses in the dealership contract, including that which provides for the possibility of restricting supplies to dealers and, in so doing, influences the business conduct of the latter.

see paras 60, 63-65, 67

4. In accordance with Article 15(5)(a) of Regulation No 17, fines cannot be imposed in respect of acts taking place after notification to the Commission and before the decision by which the Commission grants or refuses application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), ‘provided they fall within the limits of the activity described in the notification’.

It follows from that provision that, on an a contrario reading, when the acts in question go beyond the limits of the notified activity, the exemption from fines cannot apply to any of those acts as the activity in question will no longer correspond to that described in the notification. This finding is corroborated by the fact that, in cases where the conduct the subject of complaint consists of a series of measures pursuing the same objective, it would be artificial to subdivide that conduct for the purpose of applying the exemption from fines only to some of the measures which make up that series.

see paras 83-84, 178-179

5. Under Community competition law, the finding that an infringement was committed intentionally or through negligence, within the terms of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, does not require identification of the persons who had acted improperly within the undertaking which has been penalised or who ought to have been held responsible for any defective organisation of that undertaking.

see paras 96, 98

6. 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 Community 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. Although the Commission is required under Article 190 of the Treaty to set out the circumstances of fact and law justifying the adoption of a decision imposing a fine on an undertaking for an infringement of Community competition law and the legal considerations which led the Commission to adopt that decision, that article does not require the Commission to discuss all the matters of fact and law which may have been dealt with during the administrative procedure.

see paras 124, 127

7. It is not for the Court, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the Court of First Instance exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of Community law. The Court cannot therefore, at the appeal stage, examine whether the amount of the fine fixed by the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, is proportionate in relation to the gravity and duration of the infringement as established by that Court on completion of its appraisal of the facts.

see para. 151