Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Decision of the Commission granting individual exemption to an agreement - Action brought by a party to the agreement who had brought proceedings for compensation before the national courts - Admissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. Actions for annulment - Locus standi - Right of a natural or legal person to bring an action against an exemption decision affecting numerous persons - Infringement of the principle of legal certainty - None

(Art. 230 EC)

3. Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Prohibition - Exemption - Conditions - Review by the Court - Limits

(Art. 81(3) EC)

4. Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Summary of the pleas in law relied upon - Similar requirements for submissions in support of a plea in law - Complaints not set out in the application - Catch-all reference to the annexes - Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

5. Procedure - Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings - Conditions - New plea - Definition - Similar requirements for submissions in support of a plea in law

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2))

6. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decision applying competition rules

(Art. 253 EC)

Summary

1. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC only if that decision affects them by reason of attributes peculiar to them or by reason of factual circumstances differentiating them from all other persons and, as a result, distinguishing them individually in like manner to the person addressed.

A person is individually concerned by a decision to grant exemption for an agreement if he is a party to the agreement, claims that the agreement imposed discriminatory prices on him and so prevented him from competing on equal terms, and has brought proceedings in the national courts against the other party to the agreement for compensation for having had obligations contrary to Article 81 EC imposed on him under the exempted agreement.

( see paras 28-30 )

2. Individuals derive from Community law a right to complete and effective judicial protection, and it was intended, in the Treaty, to establish a complete system of judicial protection against acts of Community institutions which are capable of having legal effects.

That right of the individual would be deprived of substance if, despite being entitled, according to the conditions in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, to bring an action for annulment against an act, he were unable to contest its validity, on the ground that, since that act also affected numerous other persons, the principle of legal certainty prevented it from being challenged.

Moreover, if it were accepted that the principle of legal certainty could block a person's right to bring an action for annulment against the decision granting an exemption to an agreement to which he is a party together with numerous other economic operators, that principle would also prevent a national court hearing a case in which that party to the contract has called into question the validity of the decision from making a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC for a preliminary ruling on the question of validity. The effects of a declaration of invalidity of an act by the Court of Justice following such proceedings are similar to those of an annulment decision of the Court of First Instance in an action for annulment on the basis of Article 230 EC.

( see paras 32-34 )

3. Review by the Community judicature of the complex economic appraisals made by the Commission when it exercises the discretion conferred on it by Article 81(3) EC, with regard to each of the four conditions laid down in that provision, must be limited to verifying whether the rules on procedure and on the giving of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.

( see para. 36 )

4. Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance the application initiating the proceedings must contain a summary of the pleas in law relied on. Since that requirement is mandatory, the issue of compliance with it may be raised by the Court of First Instance of its own motion. The summary of the pleas relied on must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in support of a plea in law. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on are indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself. While the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed to it, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the above provisions, must appear in the application. Moreover, it is not for the Court to seek and identify in the annexes the pleas and arguments on which it may consider the action to be based, since the annexes have a purely evidential and instrumental function.

( see para. 154 )

5. It follows from Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure that the introduction of a new plea in law in the course of proceedings is not allowed unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure. However, a plea which constitutes an amplification of a submission previously made, either expressly or by implication, in the original application and is closely linked to it must be declared admissible. The same applies to a submission made in support of a plea in law.

( see para. 156 )

6. The reasoning required by Article 253 EC must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted the contested measure so as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review.

The requirement to state reasons must be assessed in relation to 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 every relevant point of fact and law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC 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.

In particular, the Commission cannot be required to discuss all the matters of fact and law which may have been dealt with during the administrative procedure. The Commission is not obliged to adopt a position on all the arguments relied on by the parties concerned in support of their request, and need only set out the facts and legal considerations having decisive importance for the structure of the decision.

( see para. 164-166 )