Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1 Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Obligation of the Commission to adopt a decision on whether there is an infringement - None - Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a matter

(EC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 189; Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

2 Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a matter - Criteria of assessment - Practices complained of having ceased

(EC Treaty, Arts 3(g), 86, 89(1) and 155)

3 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision rejecting a complaint on the ground of lack of sufficient Community interest

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

4 Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Misuse of powers - Concept

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1 Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer upon a person who lodges an application under that article the right to obtain from the Commission a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty as to the existence or otherwise of an infringement of Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty or of both. Moreover, the Commission is entitled to give different degrees of priority to complaints made to it and to reject a complaint if it considers that the case does not display a sufficient Community interest to continue with the investigation of the matter. Even if the Commission has carried out a preliminary investigation of the acts complained of from the point of view of the relevant provisions of the Treaty, that does not preclude the sole ground for its decision being the lack of a sufficient Community interest.

2 Assessment of the Community interest in an application to the Commission under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 is necessarily founded on an examination of the particular circumstances of the case, subject to review by the Court.

In view of the general objective of the activities of the Community laid down by Article 3(g) of the Treaty, namely the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted, and the supervisory role conferred on the Commission by Articles 89(1) and 155 of the Treaty, the Commission, provided it states the reasons for its decision, may lawfully decide that it is not appropriate to pursue a complaint regarding practices which have since ceased, all the more so where they have ceased as a result of action by the Commission. It is not important to know the legal basis for the adoption of a decision putting an end to the practices complained of, since it is only the effect of that decision which must be taken into account.

In such a case, investigating the matter and establishing that infringements have taken place in the past would no longer help to ensure undistorted competition in the common market and would thus not correspond to the functions conferred on the Commission by the Treaty. The essential object of pursuing the case would be to make it easier for the complainants to prove fault in an action for damages in the national courts.

3 The obligation to state reasons laid down by Article 190 of the Treaty is an obligation to disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the act, so as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Community judicature to exercise its review. When the Commission takes a decision to reject a complaint which is before it on the ground of lack of sufficient Community interest, it cannot merely refer to the Community interest in the abstract. It must set out the legal and factual considerations which led it to conclude that there was insufficient Community interest to justify investigating the case.

4 A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, that it was adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving ends other than those stated.