(AGENPARL) – gio 09 marzo 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Cases C-682/20 P |Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission, C-690/20 P Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino v Commission and C-693/20 P Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission:
The Court sets aside in part the judgments of the General Court and, consequently, annuls the decisions of the Commission ordering inspections at the premises of a number of French undertakings in the distribution sector on account of suspicions of anticompetitive practices
The Commission ought to have recorded the interviews it conducted with suppliers of those undertakings so as to be able to use the information from those interviews as indicia of an infringement since, in view of their content and context, the purpose of those interviews was to collect information relating to the subject matter of an investigation.
Kind regards,
Natassa Mouzouki
Press and Information Unit, Ireland / Malta
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
[logo-en]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 44
/23

Luxembourg, 9 March 2023

Judgments of the Court in Cases
C
–
682/20

P |
Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises

v
Commission
,

C
–
690/20 P
Casino,
Guichard
–
Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino

v
Commission

and

C
–
693/20 P
Intermarché Casino Achats

v
Commission

The Court
sets aside in part the judgments of the General Court and,
consequently, annuls the decisions of the Commission ordering
inspecti
ons at the premises of a number of French undertakings in the

The Commission ought to have recorded the interviews it conducted with suppliers of those undertakings so as
to be able
to use the information from those interviews as indicia of an infringement since, in view of their
content and context, the purpose of those interviews was to collect information relating to the subject matter
of an investigation
.

After receiving informati
associations of undertakings in the food and non
–
food distribution sector, the Commission adopted, in February
2017, a series of decisions ordering seve
ral

companies to submit to i
nspections.
In those inspections, the
Commission, inter alia, visited the premises of the relevant companies where copies of the content of computer
equipment were taken.
(CP 122/20)

The companies

Les Mousquetaires, ITM Entreprises, Casino, Guichard
–
Perrac
hon, Achats Marchandises Casino
and

Intermarché Casino Achats

brought actions before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of
the aforementioned
Commission

decisions
.
By its judgments of
5
October

2020
,
1

the General Court upheld those
actions only in part.

Those undertakings brought appeals before the Court of Justice against the judgments of the General Court.

By it
s judgments today, the Court
observes that
the

Commission
is required to
record

any interv
iew which it
conducts

in order to collect information relating to the subject matter of an
investigation
.
In

that regard
,

the
Court finds that

that

obligation
applies irrespective of whether the interview i
n

question was conducted
before the formal opening of an investigation
,
in order to collect indicia of an infringement,
o
r afterwards
,
for
the purpose of
collect
ing evidence of an infringement
.

In that

context,
the

Cour
t adds that the

Commission
may record
the interviews in any form, including oral, thereby
ensuring the effectiveness and
speed of the investigation
.

In th
ose circumstances, the Court
finds that the General Court erred in law in holding that the obligation to record

1

Judgments of the General Court of 5 October 2020,
Casino,
Guichard
–
Perrachon and AMC

v
Commission
,
T
–
249/17
,
Intermarché Casino Achats

v
Commission
,
T
–
254/17
,
Les Mousq
uetaires and ITM Entreprises

v
Commission
,
T
–
255/17

(see also
PR No 122/20
).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected!

did not apply to interviews
conducted by the Commission with suppliers of the undertakings in question, on the
.

The

Cour
t
he scope of the Commissionâ??s
collecting information
relating to the subject matter of an investigation, having regard to their content and context
.
Such an examinat
ion
would have led to the
conclusion

that those interviews
had to be

recorde
d
.
Consequently
,
the Court
sets aside
,
in
part
,

the aforementioned judgments of the
General Court
.

Taking the view that it is in a position to give a final ruling on the dispute,
the Court
concludes that

since

the

information obt
ained in disregard of the
obligation
to record
constituted the essential elements of the
indicia on which the
Commissionâ??s decision
s
are
based
, they are not substantiated by
sufficiently serious
indicia
.

Th
e

Cour
t
accordingly

a
lso annuls those de
cisions
.

NOTE:

An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and
well founded, the Court of
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the
General Court, which is bound by the decision gi
ven by the Court of Justice on the appeal.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the judgment
s (
C
–
682/20 P
,
C
–
690/20 P

and
C
–
693/20 P
)

is published on the CURIA website on the day
of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 430
3 3355