International Power plc, British Coal Corporation, PowerGen (UK) plc and Commission of the European Communities v National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO).
Date: 2003-10-02
52.  In that regard, it need only be noted that in order to comply with the judgment under appeal the Commission would be obliged to conduct a fresh examination of the 1994 complaint. It is possible that at the end of that examination the Commission would adopt a measure disadvantageous to IP, BC and PG, which could then run the risk of being exposed to an action for damages before the national courts.
53.  It follows that the decision of the Court of First Instance directly affects IP, BC and PG, and that the appeals brought by them are admissible.
Substance
78.  In that regard, it should be recalled that in paragraph 19 of   Hopkins and Others  , the Court of Justice observed that in order to ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition laid down in Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, the powers conferred on the Commission by Article 63(1) of that treaty must be such as to enable it not only to oblige the authorities of the Member States to bring to an end for the future any systematic discrimination which the Commission has found to exist, but also, on the basis of that finding, to draw all the consequences as regards the effects which such discrimination may have had in relationships between purchasers and producers within the meaning of Article 4(b) even before the Commission took action.
86.  The fact that, as the Court stated in paragraph 29 of   Hopkins and Others  , Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty does not have direct effect does not militate against that interpretation. The prohibition of discrimination in Article 4(b) of that treaty applies even though, prior to any action being taken by the Commission, the national courts are not empowered to impose a penalty in respect of such discrimination.
87.  It must also be pointed out that Commission recommendations relating to discrimination which has already ended may be relied upon before national courts on the same conditions as directives (Hopkins and Others  , paragraph 28).
90.  As the Advocate General observed in point 153 of his Opinion, individuals cannot rely directly on Article 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty before national courts if no action has been taken by the Commission (Banks  , paragraph 19). Moreover, that provision does not provide for any penalty for infringements which have already ceased. Therefore, in order to ensure the practical effect of Article 4(d) of that treaty, the Commission must have the power to adopt recommendations in respect of conduct which has already ceased. The power to adopt decisions, also provided for in Article 66(7), does not suffice in that regard, since it is subject to the prior adoption of a recommendation.
103.  First of all, the Court must reject the argument put forward by IP and PG that, as regards discriminatory pricing, the 1998 Decision merely confirmed the 1991 Decision.  The adoption of a particular position can be regarded as a mere confirmation of an earlier decision only where it contains no new factors as compared with that decision (see, in particular, Case 23/80   Grasselli   v   Commission   [1980] ECR 3709, paragraph 18).
106.  In order to fulfil their function, limitation periods must be fixed in advance, and the fixing of their duration and the detailed rules for their application comes within the powers of the Community legislature (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P   Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano   v   Commission   [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 139).
107.  However, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers (Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano   v   Commission  , cited above, paragraph 140).
137.  However, if the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law but the operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed (see, in particular, Case C-265/97 P   VBA   v   Florimex and Others   [2000] ECR I-2061, paragraph 121).
145.  In so doing, the Court of First Instance did not draw the necessary distinction between the requirement to state reasons and the substantive legality of the contested decision (See   VBA   v   Florimex and Others  , cited above, paragraphs 114 and 115).