592In so far as the applicant refers to that annex to its application, the Court must observe that, according to well-established case-law, in order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible, the essential matters of fact and law on which it is based must be stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (Case C-178/00 Italy v Commission [2003] ECR I-303, paragraph 6; Case T-195/95 Guérin automobiles v Commission [1997] ECR II-679, paragraph 20; Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt v Commission [2000] ECR II-387, paragraph 66; the order of 25 July 2000 in Case T-110/98 RJB Mining v Commission [2000] ECR II-2971, paragraph 23, and the case-law cited; Case T-195/00 Travelex Global and Financial Services and Interpayment Services v Commission [2003] ECR II-1677, paragraph 26; Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd v Commission [2004] ECR II-917, paragraph 45; see also, to that effect, Joined Cases 19/60, 21/60, 2/61 and 3/61 Fives Lille Cail and Others v High Authority [1961] ECR 281, and Case C-330/88 Grifoni v Commission [1991] ECR I-1045, paragraphs 17 and 18). In that regard, whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the abovementioned provisions, must appear in the application (order of 21 May 1999 in Case T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-703, paragraph 49). Thus, inasmuch as the complaints advanced by the applicant in the document in question could be regarded as independent pleas directed against aspects of the analysis in the SO other than the definition of the relevant market, those pleas are not to be taken into account.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.