Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 21 February 1989

1 Original language: French.

2 First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87).

3 See the Minute of 2 April 1987, annex 4 to the reply.

4 It is true that the German version of the decision addressed to Hoechst uses the words relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry only with regard to the explanations that may be demanded by the Commission officials. However that is merely a textual error which could not be, and was not, of any significance. On the one hand, it is apparent from the preamble to the decision that the measures ordered therein concerned only agreements and concerted practices whose existence was suspected by the Commission. On the other, Hoechst was not misled regarding the fact that the investigation could relate only to the matters so defined and its complaint was merely that the Commission did not sufficiently specify the subject-matter.

5 Blum: Die Auskunfts- und sonstigen Ennittlunglrechte der Kartellbebörden, Thesis, Heidelberg 1986, p 252; Deringer: Das Wettbewerbirecht der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinichaft, Kommentar, 1962 (updated 1963), paragraph 9 on Article 14 of Regulation No 17; Goldmann and Lyon-Caen: Droit commercial européen. Fourth Edition, 1983, No 699, p 791

6 Gleis and Hirsch: Kommentar zum EWG-Kartellrecht, Third Edition, 1978, paragraph 25 on Article 14 of Regulation No 17; Graupner: The investigatory powers of the European Commission in antitrust cases, International Business Lawyer, 1981, p. 453; Kuyper and van Rijn: Procedural guarantees and investigatory methods in European law, with special reference to competition, 1982, Yearbook of European Law, p. 13; Schröter: Kommentar zu Art. 87 EWG-Vertrag in V. D. Groeben, Thiesing and Ehlermann: Handbuch des Europäischen Rechts, Vol. 8, 212, November 1984 edition, Article 87 of the EEC Treaty, paragraph 38; Mestmäcker: Europäisches Wellbewerbsrecm, 1974, pp. 606 and 607.

7 See the judgment in AM & S, paragraph 15.

8 W. Kreis: Ermittlungsverfahren der EG-Kommission in Knncllsachen, in Rctht der Internationalen Wirttehaft, Vol. 5. May 1981, p. 281. in particular at p. 291; W. A. Rehmann: Zur Vollstreckung einer Nachprüfungsentscheidung der Kommission der EG, in Nene Jitńuncbe Wochmichriß 1987, Vol 48, p. 3061 et seq.

9 Mestmäcker, op. cit, p. 607.

10 Van Fraeycnhoven: Lc respect de la vie privée et le pouvoir d'investigation du fisc, Annalei de droit de Louvain, 1984, p. 85 et seq.

11 Thus, the law on criminal procedure requires consent and a warrant for entry and search of a home or, where that consent is refused, a warrant issued by a court stating the reasons on which it is based.

12 Frowein and Peukert: Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, EMRK-Kommentar, Article 8, No 27.

13 Judgment of 26 June 1980 in Case 136/79 National Panasonic Comminion [1980] ECR 2033, at pp. 2056 and 2057.

14 Sec, on that point, the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Warner in National Panasonic[1980] ECR 2061, 2068.

15 Commission's Powers of Investigation and Inspection, House of Lords, Session 1983-84, 18th Report, HMSO.

16 Although, in a completely different context, Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities also provides for the authorization of the Court of Justice if a search is to he made in Community premises and buildings.

17 See the judgment of 23 September 1986 in Case 5/85 AKZO v Commission [1986] ECR 2615, paragraph 38.

18 With regard to this substantive difference between the decisions taken at the end of such a procedure and the decisions ordering an investigation, see the judgment in National Panasonic, cited above, [1980] ECR 2058, paragraph 21.I will return to that subject in the context of the decision imposing a periodic penalty payment on Hoechst.

19 Judgment in National Panasonic, paragraph 21.

20 Judgment of 26 October 1983 in Case 107/82 AEG v Commission [1983] ECR 3151, paragraph 49; sec also the judgment of 14 July 1972 in Case 48/69 ICI v Commission [1972] ECR 619, paragraphs 132 and 133

21 [1980] ECR 2033, paragraphs 28 to 30.

22 Case 77/70 Prellev Commission [1971] ECR 561.

23 Joined Cases 2 and 3/62 Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium [1962] ECR 445.

24 See, in that regard, the judgment of 1 April 1982 in Case 11/81 Dürbeckv Commission [1982] ECR 1251, paragraph 17, and the two judgments mentioned in the two preceding footnotes. See also the wording of Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Article 98 thereof, which provides that, in regard to an application for revision, time is to run from the date on which the applicant receives knowledge of the facts on which the application is based.

25 Joined Cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85, [1988] ECR 5193

26 OJ L 302, 15.11.1985.

27 See, in particular, the judgment of 19 January 1988 in Case 233/86 Pesca Valentia v Minuter for Fisheries and Forestry, Ireland and the Attorney General [1988] ECR 83, paragraph 18.

28 See, in particular, the judgment of 24 June 1986 in Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie v Commission [1986] ECR 1965, paragraph 23.

29 Regulation on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 47).

30 Judgment of 23 September 1986 in Case 5/85 AKZO Chemie v Commission [1986] ECR 2585. paragraph 24

31 [1981] ECR 2639. In that judgment, the Court held: According to the consistent case-law of the Court, any measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 for a declaration that it is void (paragraph 9).

32 See, in addition to the judgment of 13 February 1979 in Case 101/78 Granaria v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1979] ECR 623, paragraph 4, cited by the Commission, the judgment of 1 April 1982 in Case 11/81 Dürbeck v Commission [1982] ECR 1251, paragraph 17