Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.
YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED
Article 41 - Right to good administration
Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
Appeal — Competition — Rejection of a complaint by the European Commission — Lack of Union interest
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby:
22) In support of their action, they relied on two pleas in law, the first alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and the second infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
92) Next, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in failing to examine the substance of their plea for annulment which alleged that they had been deprived of the right to an effective remedy. Consequently, in paragraph 93 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that they had a remedy against the rejection of the complaint. However, their plea before the General Court was based on the fact that the absence of a decision on the substance adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 had deprived them of the possibility of submitting such a Commission decision for review by a court as to whether or not there was in the present case an infringement of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. The General Court simply examined the validity of the decision at issue with regard to compliance with the requirements of precision and detail, as is apparent from paragraph 38 of the judgment under appeal. Such an examination does not guarantee their right to effective judicial protection or to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and Article 47 of the Charter.
93) Lastly, the appellants submit that the General Court did not take into account the Commission’s obligation to deal with the case within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter.