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 is required to comply with the procedural guarantees provided for by EU law. Among the guarantees granted by the EU legal order, is the principle of sound administration, a general principle laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which requires the relevant body to handle with care and impartiality all the relevant facts of the case at hand . Subjective impart …

Principle of sound administration

The Commission is required to comply with the procedural guarantees provided for by EU law. Among the guarantees granted by the EU legal order, is the principle of sound administration, a general principle laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which requires the relevant body to handle with care and impartiality all the relevant facts of the case at hand . Subjective impartiality i.e. no member of the Commission who is responsible for the matter may show bias or personal prejudice, is different in that respect from objective impartiality which requires that there be sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to bias on the part of the institution concerned . The General Court has stated that objective impartiality is guaranteed in a number of internal documents requiring it to comply with certain rules when communicating publicly, such as the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, the Code of good administrative behavior for Staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public and the Code of Ethics and Integrity of DG Competition . Furthermore, the principle of sound administration does not require the Commissioner for Competition to attend the hearings of undertakings, nor does it oblige  DG Competition to organize a re-examination of every case by an internal panel.

The Commission infringes the principle of good administration when it discloses to the press, before adoption of the decision, the amount of the fine envisaged  or within the space of a few days, it clearly makes known to a cooperating undertaking its intention not to disclose the fact that other undertakings have approached its services in order to obtain immunity from a fine, and then indicates to another that a fair warning will be given to it if another undertaking attempts to overtake it in relation to cooperation . On the other hand, the mere finding of an act of “maladministration” by the European Ombudsman is not binding on the European Court of Justice as regards the characterization of a breach of duty by a member of the Commission . A breach of the principle of sound administration does not include the conduct of a member of the case team who, by making oral statements, brings the applicant's activities into disrepute, when the statements in question are made after the decision has been adopted. . Statements made by the Commissioner for Competition at a press conference which merely inform the public about investigations in progress, with the discretion and circumspection necessary for the presumption of innocence to be respected, do not contradict the principle of sound administration . Nor do statements made after the adoption of a settlement decision constitute a breach of the principle of sound administration with regard to companies that have not settled, even if they have failed to show restraint, when they were no longer members of the institution at the date of adoption of the ordinary decision, which, incidentally, is adopted in accordance with the principle of collegiality . Furthermore, the principle of sound administration does not require the Commissioner for Competition to attend the hearings of undertakings, nor does it oblige  DG Competition to organize a re-examination of every case by an internal panel . There is also no requirement that the Commission's decision be taken by the same individuals who participated in the hearing of the undertaking . Nor can the principle of sound administration prevent the Commission from resuming proceedings after the annulment of its decision by the General Court or the Court of Justice, in the absence of concrete evidence likely to give rise to legitimate doubt as to its impartiality .

Undertakings have sought to extend the requirement of impartiality laid down in Article 41 of the Charter to representatives of the competition authorities of the Member States, when they take part in a hearing and contribute to the opinion to be delivered by the Advisory Committee on a draft Commission decision. According to the Court of Justice, even if such a principle were applicable to them, their mere knowledge of a previous Commission decision, confirmed by a General Court judgment and subsequently annulled by the Court, is not in itself sufficient, in the absence of any other objective factor, to raise a legitimate doubt in the eyes of third parties as to the existence of any prejudice on their part .

 In any case, infringement of the principle of good administration may lead to annulment of the decision only if it is established that the decision would have been different if that irregularity had not occurred .

Case T-433/16 Pometon SpA, Judgment of 28 March 2019, LawLex202000002162JBJ.

Case C-439/11 P Ziegler SA  v Commission, Judgment of 11 July 2013, LawLex201300001127JBJ, holding that the Commission does not infringe the principle of objective impartiality when it investigates a cartel which is detrimental to the European Union's financial interests and imposes penalties on its members.

Case T-364/10 Duravit AG, Judgement of 16 September 2013, not available in English.

Case C-31/23 P Ferriere Nord SpA, Judgment of 4 October 2024, LawLex202500006699JBJ.

Case C-31/23 P Ferriere Nord SpA, Judgment of 4 October 2024, LawLex202500006699JBJ and Case C-29/23 P, Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, not available in English.

Case T-15/02 BASF v Commission [2006] ECR II-497, LawLex200600001226JBJ; Case T-279/02 Degussa v Commission [2006] ECR II-897, LawLex200700001980JBJ.

Case T-691/14 Servier SAS, Judgment of 12 December 2018, LawLex201900001337JBJ.

Case T-62/98 Volkswagen v Commission [2000] ECR II-2707, LawLex200400003580JBJ.

Case T-410/03 Hoechst v Commission [2008] ECR II-881, LawLex200900000062JBJ, cited above. 

Case T-106/17 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2 cases), 20 December 2023, LawLex202400000098JBJ and Case T-113/17 Crédit agricole SA, not available in English.

Case T-31/99 ABB Asea Brown Boveri (Ltd) v Commission [2002] ECR II-2023, LawLex200500005043JBJ.

Case T-691/14 Servier SAS, Judgment of 12 December 2018, LawLex201900001337JBJ, which also states that after the Statement of Objections, in which the Commission takes the prima facie view that an infringement has been committed, the duty of confidentiality of the member of the Commission responsible for competition need no longer be as broad as it was before the Statement of Objections..

Case T-106/17 JPMorgan Chase & Co., 20 December 2023, (2 cases), LawLex202400000098JBJ and Case T-113/17 Crédit agricole SA, not available in English, cited above.

European Competition Law

247. Principle of sound administration

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

247. Principle of sound administration

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

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