9Finally, as to the third plea, alleging infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance held as follows:75. It is settled case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance (judgments in Case 110/81 Roquette Frères v Council [1982] ECR 3159, paragraph 24, and Case T-7/92 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-669, paragraph 30) that the statement of the reasons on which a decision is based must enable the addressee to recognize the reasons for the measure adopted, so that it may, if necessary, enforce its rights and verify whether or not the decision is well founded, and must enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review.76. Furthermore, when stating the reasons for the decision which it is required to take in order to ensure the application of the competition rules, the Commission is not obliged to adopt a position on all the arguments relied on by the parties concerned in support of their request. It is sufficient if the Commission sets out the facts and the legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision (judgments in Case T-44/90 La Cinq v Commission [1992] ECR II-1, paragraph 35, and Asia Motor France and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 31).77. From its reading of the contested decision the Court finds that the decision sets out the essential matters of fact and of law on which its rejection of the applicant's complaint is based, thereby enabling the applicant to contest its validity and the Court to review its legality. It follows that the statement of the reasons on which the contested decision is based is not in any way defective.78. It follows that the application must be dismissed in its entirety.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.