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

Pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, the Commission decisions must state the reasons on which they are based. The scope of the obligation to state reasons is assessed with regard not only to the wording of the decision and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question but also to its context . The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the nature of the measure and must show clearly and un …

Obligation to state reasons

Pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, the Commission decisions must state the reasons on which they are based. The scope of the obligation to state reasons is assessed with regard not only to the wording of the decision and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question but also to its context . The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the nature of the measure and must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Commission, so as to inform the interested persons of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its power of review . In State aid matters, the requirement of a statement of reasons is assessed not only on the basis of the interest which the Member State to whom the measure is addressed may have in being informed but also on the basis of the interest which other persons having direct and individual concern may have in receiving explanations .

The decision must make it possible to clearly identify the measures classified as State aid . The Commission cannot merely refuse to classify a measure as existing aid where earlier decisions give the impression that the measure was a State aid when put into effect and that it could receive that classification . The Commission is required to examine seriously all the conditions which governed the setting of the amount of the aid . The statement of reasons must inter alia be particularly precise where the Commission implements, for the first time, a new and important policy . By contrast, this is not the case where the Commission adopts a decision following a complaint which relies on grounds misconceived in terms of the principles on which they were based . The decision may even lack of reasoning where it comes in a context with which the State concerned is quite familiar  or it sets forth the conditions of lawfulness laid down in the guidelines and brings satisfactory evidence as to the long-term viability and the proportionality of the aid .

The scope of the duty to state reasons, particularly when assessing the effect of the aid measure on trade between Member States, depends, for a multisectoral aid, on the data and information communicated within the framework of the administrative procedure . However, the lack of reasoning cannot be justified by the fragmentary nature of the information sent during the administrative procedure, where the Commission did not use the powers to require the authorities of the Member State concerned to provide it with relevant information . In order to meet its obligation to state reasons for a decision holding aid incompatible, the Commission may merely establish that the measure in question is such as affecting trade between Member States and distorts or threatens to distort competition, without it being necessary to define the markets concerned or to carry out an economic analysis of the actual market situation, of the recipient undertaking's market share, of the position of competing undertakings and the trade patterns in question between Member States . The obligation to state reasons does not go so far as to require the Commission to examine whether all or some of the operators excluded from the aid scheme which applies to virtually the entire economy of the Member State are in a situation comparable to that of the beneficiaries, and to justify the exclusion of all such operators . Lastly, the Commission is required to inform the complainant of the reasons why the elements of fact and law contained in its complaint  were insufficient to show the existence of a State aid .

The Commission is not subject to a duty of detailed reasoning where it uses its injunction power for the recovery of an unlawful aid . In particular, the Commission is not required, when ordering the recovery of aid, to mention the exact amount of aid where its decision includes information enabling the recipient to find that amount out without too much difficulty .

The Commission may change its position during the formal examination procedure. In this case, it cannot be accused of having breached its obligation to state reasons, provided that it has explained the reason for the change and that the parties have been made aware of their rights and obligations and have been able to make arrangements following publication of the decision .

Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, LawLex200500005307JBJ; Case C-278/95 P Siemens v Commission [1997] ECR I-2507, LawLex200500005095JBJ; Case T-266/94 Skibsvaerftsforeningen and others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1399, LawLex200500005244JBJ.

See inter alia Case 67/85 Van der Kooy v Commission [1988] ECR 219, LawLex200500004469JBJ; Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France [1998] ECR I-1719, LawLex200500005087JBJ, CMLR, 1999, 1335, obs. SLOT; Case C-15/98 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855, LawLex200500004915JBJ; Case C-5/01 Belgium v Commission [2002] ECR I-11991, LawLex200500004860JBJ; Case C-57/00 P Freistaat Sachsen and others v Commission [2003] ECR I-9975, LawLex200500004603JBJ; Case T-214/95 Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, LawLex200500005187JBJ; Case T-228/99 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Commission [2003] ECR II-435, LawLex200500004822JBJ. Case C-131/15 P Hotel club Loutraki, Judgment of 21 December 2016, LawLex201600002120JBJ, holding that the Commission did not infringe the obligation to state reasons incumbent on it by redacting the economic data in the non-confidential version of the decision at issue, nor that that redaction infringed the appellants' right to an effective judicial remedy insofar as the decision disclosed in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Commission and the methodology used by it, in such a way as to enable the General Court to exercise its power of review in respect of them and as the appellants have not specified to what extent the redacted data would have been relevant for the purpose of providing evidence of serious difficulties.; Case. T-268/21 Ryanair DAC, Judgment of 24 May 2023, : which held that the Commission decision should be annulled on the grounds that it failed to state clearly and unequivocally the reasoning which led it to assert that the only relevant provision, other than Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, to examine the compatibility of the minimum wage requirement for employees contained in an aid scheme in the context of Covid-19 is Article 8 of the Rome I Regulation, to the exclusion of other provisions of EU law, in particular Article 56 TFEU.

Case T-254/00 Hotel Cipriani v Commission [2008] ECR II-3269, LawLex200900000254JBJ.

Case T-323/99 INMA and Itainvest v Commission [2002] ECR II-545, LawLex200500005045JBJ; Case T-455/05 Componenta v Commission [2008] ECR II-336*, Summ.pub.

Case T-579/08 Eridania Sadam v Commission, not available in English.

Case T-102/21 Bastion Holding BV, Judgment of 10 May 2023, LawLex202300006558JBJ.

Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, Article 20(2).

Case T-95/94 Sytraval and Brink's France v Commission [1995] ECR II-2651, LawLex200500005213JBJ; Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France [1998] ECR I-1719, LawLex200500005087JBJ.

Case T-204/97 EPAC v Commission [2000] ECR II-2267, LawLex200500005189JBJ; Case C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano [2005] ECR I-11137, LawLex200600001240JBJ. Case T-394/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and others [2011] ECR p. II-6255, LawLex201400000165JBJ. 

Case C-480/98 Spain v Commission [2000] ECR I-8717, LawLex200500004969JBJ.

Case T-79/21  Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd, Judgment of 14 June 2023, LawLex202400004699JBJ.

Case T-371/94 British Airways and others and British Midland Airways v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, LawLex200500005198JBJ; Case T-318/00 Freistaat Thüringen v Commission [2005] ECR II-4179, LawLex200600001243JBJ.

Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-1487, LawLex200500004601JBJ; Case T-93/02 Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel v Commission [2005] ECR II-143, LawLex200500005214JBJ.

Case T-50/06 Ireland and others v Commission [2007] ECR II-172, LawLex200800000241JBJ.

Case T-309/04 TV 2/Danmark v Commission [2008] ECR II-2935, LawLex200900000256JBJ.

Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission [2003] ECR II-1789, LawLex200500005196JBJ; Case C-295/07 P Département du Loiret v Commission [2008] ECR I-9363, LawLex200900000249JBJ.

Case C-341/06 P Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and others [2008] ECR I-4777, LawLex200900000067JBJ. 

Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, LawLex200500005080JBJ; Case T-17/02 Olsen v Commission [2005] ECR II-2031, LawLex200600001242JBJ.

Case T-349/03 Corsica Ferries France v Commission [2005] ECR II-2197, LawLex200800000234JBJ.

European Competition Law

441. Obligation to state reasons

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

441. Obligation to state reasons

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