Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 10 February 1994

1 Original language: German.

2 SFEI and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II-2479.

3 Judgment in Case T-64/89 Automec v Commission [19901 ECR II-367.

4 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 31.

5 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 37.

6 Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962 (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87).

7 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 14.

8 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 41.

9 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraphs 42 and 43.

10 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 43.

11 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 43.

12 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 48.

13 Cf. the allegations in the application at paragraph 10 above.

14 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 37.

15 See the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Council Decision No 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a court of first instance of the European Communities (OJ 1988 C 215, p. 1) and also the first recital in the preamble to Council Decision No 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993 amending Decision No 88/591 (OJ 1993 L 144, p. 21).

16 Judgment in Case C-283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I-4339, paragraph 12 (emphasis added).

17 Ibid., (footnote 15), paragraph 13.

18 See paragraph 9 above.

19 Cf. XXth report on Competition Policy (1990), Brussels/Luxembourg 1991, No 165.

20 Ibid., (footnote 1), paragraph 42.

21 Cf. numbers 33 and 42 et seq. of the decision of 2 December 1991. The full text of that decision is, as far as is apparent, has not been printed in any journal or any other publication. However, except for information covered by business secrecy, it is available from the Commission.

22 The last paragraph of this letter (which was available to the Court of First Instance) reads: Je suis donc au regret de vous faire part de la décision des services compétents de clôturer, en raison des circonstances précisées ci-dessus, le dossier ouvert à la suite de votre demande du 21.12.1990 (I therefore regret to inform you of the decision of the competent services to close, for the reasons stated above, the file opened following your application of 21 December 1990.)

23 Cf. paragraph 31 above.

24 Ibid, (footnote 15), paragraph 29.

25 Judgment in Case C-244/91 P Pincherle v Commission [1993] ECR I-6965.

26 Ibid., (footnote 24), paragraph 33.

27 Cf. judgment in Case C-132/90 P Schwedler v Parliament [1991] ECR I-5745, paragraph 13; judgment in Case C-107/90 P Hochbaum v Commission [1992] ECR I-157, paragraph 16.

28 See footnote 2.

29 Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 47). Under Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 before giving a decision under Article 3 the Commission must hear the parties concerned. Article 6 of Regulation 99/63 provides as follows: If the Commission is of the opinion that the circumstances as ascertained by it do not give grounds for upholding an application brought under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17, it should notify the applicants of the grounds for that decision and set them a period for submitting any written observations.

30 Ibid., (footnote 2), paragraphs 45 to 47.

31 The last-mentioned section of the judgment specifically leaves open the question whether the Commission if it does not wish to uphold a complaint, must upon application by the complainant reject the complaint by means of a formal decision (and not only may) which the complainant may then proceed against under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty. In my view the complainant is entitled to that much. The judgment of the Court of First Instance in the Antomec II case (judgment in Case T-24/90 Automec v Commission [1992] ECR II-2223 which points in this direction (cf. paragraph 85) is therefore to be welcomed).

32 This argument was, moreover, used by the Court of First Instance in the Automec I case, ibid., footnote 2, paragraph

33 Judgment in Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263, paragraph 42; cf. most recently the judgment in Case C-325/91 France v Commission [1993] ECR I-3283 paragraph 9.

34 Cf. judgment in Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, paragraphs 9 et seq.

35 Judgment in Joined Cases 142/84 and 156/84 BAT and Reynolds v Commission [1987] ECR 4487, paragraph 12.

36 See paragraph 47.

37 See paragraph 26 above.

38 Ibid., (footnote 18), cf. No 165.

39 The German text states bei deren Nichteinhaltung der Antrag als zu den Akten gelegt angesehen werde (in the event of whose non-observance the application is deemed to have been discontinued.) In the Italian version ...qualora tab osservazioni non vengano trasmesse, la denuncia verrà considerata archiviata (where such observations are not submitted, the complaint shall be deemed to have been terminated).