Case T‑342/11

Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES)
and
Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish service stations market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Failure to fulfil commitments made binding by a Commission decision — Reopening of the procedure — Fines — Periodic penalty payments)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 6 February 2014

1.      Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility

(Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU)

2.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Undertaking to the Commission by undertakings entered into in the context of a proceeding for applying the competition rules — Failure to fulfil commitments made binding by a Commission decision — Powers of the Commission — Margin of discretion — Determination of priorities by the Commission

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 9, 23(2)(c) and 24(1)(c))

3.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — No obligation on the Commission to adopt a decision as to the existence of an infringement — Account to be taken of the EU interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Judicial review — Scope

(Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU)

4.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Complaint concerning non-compliance with undertakings given by an undertaking in breach — Account to be taken of the EU interest in investigating a case — Discretion of the Commission — Account taken of measures adopted by a national competition authority against the undertaking — Lawfulness

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 9, 23(2)(c) and 24(1)(c))

5.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope

(Art. 296 TFEU)

6.      Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure

(Art. 263 TFEU)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 43)

2.      Where an undertaking does not comply with a commitments decision, for the purposes of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission is not required to reopen the procedure against that undertaking under Article 9(2) of that regulation, but has discretion in that regard. It also has discretion concerning the application of Article 23(2)(c) and Article 24(1)(c) of Regulation No 1/2003, under which it may impose fines or periodic penalty payments on undertakings where they do not comply with a commitment made binding by a decision taken pursuant to Article 9 of that regulation.

As regards the factors determining the exercise of the discretion enjoyed by the Commission under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, it should be held that the latter has only limited resources, which it must use in taking action against a potentially wide range of behaviour which is contrary to competition law. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Commission to assign different priorities to the competition problems which are brought to its attention and to decide whether further investigation of a case is in the European Union interest.

(see paras 48, 49, 58, 59)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 60, 61, 70)

4.      Having regard to the fact that the Commission’s power to make commitments binding under Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003 also has the purpose of ensuring compliance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU and to the fact that the powers laid down in Article 9(2), Article 24(1)(c) and Article 23(2)(c) of that regulation seek to ensure compliance with those commitments, the principles concerning decisions rejecting a complaint for breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU also apply where any failure to fulfil a commitment is brought to the attention of the Commission and where it must decide whether it should reopen the procedure.

Since the Commission must assess whether it is in the European Union interest to further investigate a complaint in the light of the matters of law and of fact relevant in a particular case, it must take into account the fact that the situation may arise in a different way depending on whether that complaint relates to a potential failure to comply with a commitments decision or a potential infringement of Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU. Since a failure to fulfil commitments is, in general, more readily established than an infringement of Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU, the extent of the investigative measures necessary to establish such a failure to fulfil commitments will, in principle, be more limited.

However, it cannot be inferred from this that, in such a case, the Commission should systematically reopen the procedure and impose a fine or a periodic penalty payment. Such an approach would convert its powers under Article 9(2), Article 23(2)(c) and Article 24(1)(c) of Regulation No 1/2003 into circumscribed powers, which would not be consistent with the wording of those provisions.

In that context, there is nothing to prevent the Commission from taking into consideration the measures which a national competition authority has taken against an undertaking, when it is assessing whether it is in the European Union interest to reopen the procedure against that undertaking for failure to fulfil its commitments, in order to impose on it a fine or a periodic penalty payment. On the contrary, in so far as the powers of the Commission under Article 9(2), Article 23(2)(c) and Article 24(1)(c) of Regulation No 1/2003 have been conferred on it for the purpose of its task of supervising compliance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, such consideration is required.

(see paras 62-64, 68)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 101)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 105)