European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

The Commission's Statement of Objections is a procedural measure which is preparatory to the decision which is the final component thereof . The allegations it contains have a temporary character and therefore it cannot be the subject of an action for annulment , as only the final decision can be subject to such an application. The Commission may also send requests for further information in order …

Scope

The Commission's Statement of Objections is a procedural measure which is preparatory to the decision which is the final component thereof . The allegations it contains have a temporary character and therefore it cannot be the subject of an action for annulment , as only the final decision can be subject to such an application. The Commission may also send requests for further information in order to be able to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case .

As a principle, the EU authority can uphold in the final decision only objections on which the parties have made known their views. When the Commission finds during the in-depth investigation, following the Statement of Objections, that a competition problem which may give rise to a declaration of incompatibility has not been mentioned, or has not been clearly formulated, in the Statement of Objections, it must either abandon the objection concerned at the stage of its final decision or put the undertakings concerned in a position to submit, before the final decision, all observations on the substantive issues and proposals for relevant corrective measures . An additional statement must therefore be notified to the parties where new information has come to light  or where the Commission intends to impose a fine not referred to in the Statement of Objections after that statement has been notified . A second statement may also be sent to the parties to correct the omissions of the first statement in the light of their observations . The continuation of inquiries after the Statement of Objections, which is a matter for the discretion of the Commission and cannot be carried out at the request of the parties , only renders necessary the sending of an additional statement if the result of the investigations leads the Commission to take new facts into account or to alter materially the evidence for the contested infringements . On the other hand, the sending of a new Statement of Objections is not necessary if the Commission initiates the proceedings following the annulment of a previous decision, insofar as the sanction has not affected the preparatatory acts of that decision  or where the objections are dropped against certain undertakings but maintained against others as by so doing the Commission is not bringing any new objections against the undertakings or significantly modifying the evidence of the infringement at issue . The same solution applies where the Commission relies on a new element that does not attribute a different infringement to the undertaking, but merely confirms other information obtained elsewhere  or when it merely disclose the names of certain customers, as long as it does not impute a new grievance to the company or modify the intrinsic nature of the offense of which it is accused . Nor is the Commission obliged to send the parties a supplementary Statement of Objections when it merely interprets a non-competition clause covered by the Statement of Objections as also prohibiting preparatory steps, since such an interpretation is necessary in view of the very short duration of the clause and its wording in the English version . In addition, the Commission does not violate the rights of defense of the undertakings when it brings additional explanations to those contained in the Statement of Objections to refute the arguments relied on by them in their replies to it .

Case 209/78 Van Landewyck v Commission [1980] ECR 3125, LawLex200500004028JBJ.

Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, LawLex200500003899JBJ.

Case C-469/13 P Industries Chimiques du Fluor SA, LawLex202500006697JBJ; Case C-85/15 P Feralpi Holding SpA, Judgment of 21 September 2017, LawLex201700001484JBJ; Cases C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Judgment of 21 September 2017, LawLex201700001481JBJ; Case C-88/15 P Ferriere Nord SpA, Judgment of 21 September 2017, LawLex201700001476JBJ; Case C-89-15 P Riva Fire SpA, Judgment of 21 September 2017, LawLex201700001482JBJ; Case T-326/17 Air Canada, Judgment of 30 March 2022, LawLex202200001990JBJ.

Case T-758/14 Infineon Technologies AG, Judgment of 15 December 2016, LawLex201600002076JBJ; Case T-682/14  Mylan Laboratories Ltd, Judgment of 12 December 2018, LawLex201800001932JBJ, finding that the Commission may base liability on elements of fact not mentioned in the Statement of Objections or in a supplementary Statement of Objections and which appear only in a “Letter of Facts” provided that it has disclosed to the parties the documents corroborating those elements, has given them the time necessary to present their points of view, has not taken new facts into account against them and that those elements do not materially alter the evidence of the contested infringements.

Case T-342/18 Nichicon Corporation, Judgment of 29 September 2021, LawLex202100005422JBJ.

Case T-181/22 Pharol, SGPS SA, Judgment of 2 October 2024, LawLex202400007275JBJ.

Case T-82/13 Panasonic Corp, Judgment of 9 September 2015, LawLex201500001108JBJ. 

Case T-191/98 DSR-Senator Lines v Commission [1999] ECR II-2531, LawLex200500004554JBJ.

Case T-175/12 Deutsche Börse AG, Judgment of 9 March 2015, LawLex201700000663JBJ.

Case 54-69 Française des Matières Colorantes (SA), 14 July 1972, LawLex200400003460JBJ; Case T-604/18 Google LLC, Judgment of 14 September 2022, LawLex202200006913JBJ, holding that the Commission must adopt a supplementary notice when it does not communicate the data it intends to use to conduct the competitor test until the second letter setting out the facts, and thus modifies the content of one of the objections set out in its initial notice.

Case T-25-95 Cimenteries CBR (SA), Judgment of 15 March 2000, LawLex200400003586JBJ.

Case C-167-04 P JCB Service, Judgment of 21 September 2006, LawLex200700000303JBJ.

Case T-758-14 Infineon Technologies AG, Judgment of 15 December 2016, LawLex201600002076JBJ.

Case 54/69 Francolor v Commission [1972] ECR 851, LawLex200400003460JBJ.

Cases T-472-09 and T-55-10 SP SpA, Judgment of 9 December 2014, LawLex201700001057JBJ; Case T-489-09 Leali SpA, not available in English; Case T-404-12 Toshiba Corp, Judgment of 19 January 2016, LawLex201600000145JBJ; approved by Case C-180-16 P Toshiba Corp, Judgment of 6 July 2017, LawLex201700001178JBJ; Case T-334/17 Cargolux Airlines International SA, Judgment of 30 March 2022, LawLex202200002012JBJ.

European Competition Law

232. Scope

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Sous parties

Les notions juridiques connexes

232. Scope

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Sous parties

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise