ECJ 1. The provisional character conferred by article 9(3) of Regulation no 17 on steps taken by national authorities in connexion with the implementation of article 85 of the EEC Treaty cannot call in question the Commission’s exercise to the full of its powers within the framework of the common market.
2. In order to ensure legal certainty any limitation periods must be fixed in advance; the community legislature alone is competent to fix their duration and the detailed rules for their application.
3. If, after the mandatory consultation with the European Parliament on a draft regulation submitted by the Commission, the Council modifies the wording of the draft, it is not obliged to consult the parliament again if such modifications do not affect the substance of the draft regulations considered as a whole.
4. It is lawful for the Council to confer on the Commission power to adopt the regulations necessary for the implementation of the rules which the Council has adopted within the framework of its task. Since in article 19 of regulation no 17 the Council has adopted the principle that the persons concerned shall be given the opportunity of being heard by the commission, it is lawful for the Council to entrust the Commission with the task of laying down the rules of procedure to be followed in this connexion, since such rules constitute implementing provisions within the meaning of article 155 of the Treaty.
5. Respect for the rights of the defence requires that in its notice of complaints the Commission shall set forth clearly albeit succinctly the essential facts on which it relies and that in the course of the administrative procedure it shall supply the other details which may be necessary for the defence of the persons concerned.
The rights of the defence laid down by article 4 of regulation no 99 are respected if the decision does not allege that the persons concerned have committed infringements other than those referred to in the notice of complaints and only takes into consideration facts on which the persons concerned have had the opportunity of making known their views orally or in writing.
If doubt arises as to whether communicating documents necessary for the defence of a party might be incompatible with the requirement to protect the business secrets of other undertakings, the commission may not refuse such communication without first consulting the latter.
6. If an institution addresses to a person subject to the jurisdiction of a member state a document which is not drafted in the language of such state, it commits an irregularity capable of vitiating the procedure if harmful consequences result for such person within the framework of the administrative procedure.
7. The commission is required to state the reasons on which its decisions are based, enumerating the facts forming the legal basis of the measure and the considerations which led it to adopt the decision but it is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and of law referred to by every interested party in the course of the administrative procedure.
The statement of reasons for a decision imposing a fine is to be considered sufficient if it indicates clearly and coherently the considerations of fact and of law on the basis of which the fine has been imposed on the parties concerned, in such a way as to acquaint both the latter and the court with the essential factors of the commission’s reasoning.
8. The commission is entitled to publish decisions imposing penalties with regard to cartels to the extent to which such publication does not amount to divulging the undertakings’ business secrets.
9. A gentlemen’s agreement constitutes a measure which may fall under the prohibition contained in article 85(1) if it contains clauses restricting competition in the common market within the meaning of that article and its clauses amount to a faithful expression of the joint intention of the parties.
10. The penalties provided for in article 15 of regulation no 17 are not in the nature of periodic penalty payments. Their object is to suppress illegal activity and to prevent its recurrence so that their application is not restricted to current infringements alone. The commission’s power to impose penalties is in no way affected by the fact that the conduct constituting the infringement and its effects have ceased.
11. For the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine, the gravity of the infringement is to be appraised by taking into account in particular the nature of the restrictions on competition, the number and size of the undertakings concerned, the respective proportions of the market controlled by them within the community and the situation of the market when the infringement was committed.
Citations:
C-41/69, [1970] EUECJ C-41/69
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.132017
