Competition - Concentrations - Admissibility - Pay-TV markets and digital interactive television services - Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market - Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination - Time-limits - Amendment of commitments - Insufficiency of commitments.

«(Competition – Concentrations – Admissibility – Pay-TV markets and digital interactive television services – Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market – Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination – Time-limits – Amendment of commitments – Insufficiency of commitments)» Summary of the Judgment 1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision declaring a notified concentration compatible with the common market – Third-party undertaking which is a direct competitor in a neighbouring market to the dominated market and which participated in the administrative procedure – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 2.. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Summary of the pleas in law relied on – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to arguments put forward in the administrative procedure – Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) 3.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of compatibility with the common market – Creation or strengthening of a dominant position – No significant impediment to effective competition – Permissible (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2(2)) 4.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Investigation by the Commission – Examination according to the impact on the market of the operation in question (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2) 5.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Investigation by the Commission – Commitments entered into by the undertakings concerned likely to make the notified concentration compatible with the common market – Commitments as to conduct – Permissible (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 2(2) and (3)) 6.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Investigation by the Commission – Adoption of a decision declaring a notified concentration compatible with the common market without initiating the Phase II procedure – Condition – No serious doubts – Commitments entered into by the undertakings concerned likely to dispel the doubts which have arisen and to make the notified concentration compatible with the common market – Economic assessments – Discretion – Judicial review – Subject-matter – No manifest error of assessment (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 6(1) and (2)) 7.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Investigation by the Commission – Commitments entered into by the undertakings concerned likely to make the notified concentration compatible with the common market – Commitments appearing essentially to relate to adopting conduct which does not infringe Article 82 EC – Commitments not entirely without interest (Art. 82 EC) 8.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Administrative procedure – Commitments entered into by the undertakings concerned – Modifications notified beyond time-limit – Commission taking into account modified commitments and finding the concentration to be compatible with the common market – Permissible (Commission Regulation No 447/98, Art. 18(1)) 9.. Competition – Concentrations between undertakings – Investigation by the Commission – Commission's obligations vis-à-vis qualifying third parties – Communication, for prior comment, of the final terms of the commitments given by the undertakings concerned – None (Council Regulation No 4064/89, Arts 6(1)(c) and 18(4)) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)30 September 2003 (1) ((Competition – Concentrations – Admissibility – Pay-TV markets and digital interactive television services – Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market – Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination – Time-limits – Amendment of commitments – Insufficiency of commitments)) applicant, 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 9 January 2002, gives the following On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber), Jaeger Lenaerts Azizi H. Jung K. Lenaerts Registrar President 1 – Language of the case: German.