Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. ECSC — Provisions relating to discrimination as regards prices and other conditions of purchase — Commission's powers — (ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(b) and 63(1))

2. ECSC — Provisions relating to agreements and abuses of dominant positions — Commission's powers — (ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(d) and 66(7))

3. ECSC — Provisions relating to discrimination as regards prices and other conditions of purchase — Provisions relating to agreements and abuses of dominant positions — No rules laying down a limitation period for the exercise by the Commission of its powers — Observance of the requirements of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Decision on a complaint concerning an infringement committed several years prior to its lodging which has been the subject in the past of another complaint which the Commission refused to examine — Infringement of those requirements — Exclusion — Conditions — (ECSC Treaty, Arts 63(1) and 66(7))

4. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law — Operative part well founded on other legal grounds — Dismissal

5. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Absence or inadequacy of reasons stated — Manifest error of assessment — Annulling judgment not drawing the necessary distinction between the two grounds of challenge — Judgment vitiated by an error in law — (ECSC Treaty, Art. 33)

Summary

1. 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. While it is true that recommendations adopted under that provision may only instruct a Member State to take specific action with regard to the future, such action may consist of remedying the effects of past discrimination.

That power of the Commission cannot be limited to situations in which it is able to oblige those authorities to put an end to that discrimination for the future. That would entail applying a condition requiring that the infringement be contemporaneous with the Commission's exercise of its powers and would therefore result in arbitrary distinctions between undertakings which put an end to an infringement after a complaint has been lodged, and which thus would have to bear all the consequences of their conduct including, as the case may be, the obligation to pay damages, and undertakings which put an end to the offending conduct before a complaint is lodged, which would not have to bear any consequences.

see paras 78, 81, 84-85

2. Article 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty gives the Commission the power to adopt recommendations in respect of conduct which has already ceased prior to their adoption in order to ensure the effectiveness of Article 4(d) of that treaty. First, individuals cannot rely directly on Article 66(7) before national courts if no action has been taken by the Commission in respect of the same infringement and, secondly, that provision does not provide for any penalty for infringements which have already ceased. The Commission's 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.

see para. 90

3. 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. The latter has not laid down any limitation period in respect of the Commission's power to adopt recommendations under Articles 63(1) and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty. However, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers.

In that regard, examination by the Commission of a complaint concerning infringement of the provisions relating to agreements and abuse of a dominant position committed several years previously which has already been the subject of an earlier complaint which the same institution refused to examine, when the second complaint was made following a preliminary ruling by the Court holding that the interpretation of the Community rules in the decision concerning the first complaint was incorrect, cannot be regarded as compromising the principle of legal certainty or the protection of legitimate expectations.

see paras 105-109

4. 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 para. 137

5. When the Court of First Instance annuls a decision on the ground of a supposed lack of reasoning, but in fact criticises the Commission for making a manifest error of assessment, it does not draw the necessary distinction between the requirement to state reasons and the substantive legality of the decision, thus erring in law. That error in law does not, however, have any effect on the operative part of the judgment under appeal if the decision is in fact vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

see paras 144-146