Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 —
Spira v Commission
(Joined Cases T‑108/07 and T‑354/08)
Competition — Agreements and abuse of a dominant position — Rough diamond market — ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest — Procedural rights of a complainant — Access to documents — Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint — Market foreclosure effects — Manifest error of assessment
1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Rights of complainants — Access to documents — Scope — Limits (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Arts 8(1), 15(1),and 16(1); Commission Notices 2004/C 101/05, points 59, 64 to 69, and 2005/C 325/07, points 7, 8, 30 and 31) (see paras 59, 62-65, 70, 71)
2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — No obligation to conduct an investigation and rule by decision on the existence of an infringement — Discretion of the Commission as to the extent of investigation of a complaint — Limit — Duty of diligence (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7(2); Commission Notice 2004/C 101/05, points 45 and 79) (see paras 96, 115, 116)
3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Judicial review (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 7(2) and 20; Commission Notice 2004/C 101/05, points 41 to 45) (see paras 97, 98, 108, 155, 156, 165-167, 184-186, 190, 196, 200, 201)
4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — No obligation on the Commission to check all information provided (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18 and 23(1)(a)) (see para. 104)
5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Limit — Requirement of a necessary link between the information requested and the infringement investigated (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18 and 23) (see paras 118, 120-123, 130, 131)
6. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Assessment of the Community interest in investigating a case — Account to be taken of the existence of numerous complaints of similar conduct — Assessment of all the evidence — Joinder of administrative procedures — Discretion of the Commission (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7(2); Commission Notice 2004/C 101/05) (see paras 143-149)
7. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Notification — Decision of the Commission suspending the procedure — Legal nature — Subsequent opening of infringement proceedings — Account to be taken of a factual element prior to the decision to take no action — Conditions (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 153, 154, 325)
8. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility of the dismissal of a complaint solely on the basis that the infringement complained of has ceased (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7(2); Commission Notice 2004/C 101/05, points 41 to 44) (see para. 178)
9. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Plea distinct from that of the lawfulness of the contested decision (Arts 230 EC and 253 EC) (see para. 362)
Re:
| APPLICATIONS for the annulment of the Commission’s Decisions of 26 January 2007 (Case COMP/38.826/B‑2 — Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) and of 5 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.826/E‑2 — De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the interveners alleging infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in the rough diamond market through their use of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) arrangements. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
3. | | Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs. |