Judgment_paragraph 59 · Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-23/90)

59The Commission, whilst criticizing the applicants for deliberately misconstruing the terms of the order of the President of the Court of First Instance out of their context, replies that the effect of their views is to place on exactly the same footing both the requirement of a prima facie infringement in relation to a decision prescribing provisional measures and the requirement of certainty in relation to the final decision, an approach which is contrary to consistent case-law of the Court of Justice (orders in Case 3/75 R Johnson and Firth Brown v Commission [1975] ECR 6; Case 232/81 R Agricola Commerciale Olio Sri and Others v Commission [1981] ECR 2199; Case 42/82R Commission v France [1982] ECR 856; and Case T-23/90R Peugeot, cited above). The defendant thus concludes that such problems of interpretation as may arise regarding the term ‘activity equivalent to that of a reseller’ are not in any way incompatible with a finding of a prima facie infringement which enables provisional measures of limited scope to be adopted.

Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-23/90)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version