Control of concentrations - Concentration partly covered by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty - Authorisation decision on the basis of Article 66(2) CS - Decision on compatibility with the common market on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Conditions of admissibility according to the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty - Relationship between the systems for the control of concentrations laid down by the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment.

«(Control of concentrations – Concentration partly covered by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty – Authorisation decision on the basis of Article 66(2) CS – Decision on compatibility with the common market on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Conditions of admissibility according to the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty – Relationship between the systems for the control of concentrations laid down by the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment)» Summary of the Judgment 1.. Actions for annulment – Action brought against an ECSC decision by an undertaking whose business does not fall under that treaty – No capacity to bring proceedings (Art. 33, second para., CS) 2.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision finding a concentration compatible with the common market – Third-party undertaking with the capacity of direct competitor and having actively participated in the administrative procedure – Admissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 3.. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Mixed ECSC/EC concentration – Application of the respective substantive and procedural rules of the two systems – Need for two distinct prior authorisations – Commission's right to adopt two different decisions (Art. 66(1) and (2) CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89) 4.. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Assessments of an economic nature – Discretion – Judicial review – Limits (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2) 5.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Creation of a collective dominant position significantly impeding effective competition in the common market – Conditions (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2(3)) 6.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision applying rules on concentrations between undertakings (Art. 253 EC) 7.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Relevant market – Geographical definition (Council Regulation No 4064/89) 8.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Moment to be taken into consideration (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2) 9.. Competition – Concentrations – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Obligation to take account of the impact on the competitive structure of links of a financial and structural nature in exercising joint control of a joint venture (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2(2) and (3)) 10.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision applying rules on concentrations between undertakings (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 6(1)(b)) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)8 July 2003(1) ((Control of concentrations – Concentration partly covered by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty – Authorisation decision on the basis of Article 66(2) CS – Decision on compatibility with the common market on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Conditions of admissibility according to the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty – Relationship between the systems for the control of concentrations laid down by the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment)) applicants, v defendant, interveners, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber), having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 16 January 2003 gives the following On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) Lenaerts Azizi Jaeger H. Jung K. Lenaerts Registrar President 1 – Language of the case: German.