On March 21, 2019, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s dismissal of the action lodged by Eco-Bat, a British lead recycling company, against the Commission decision imposing a €32.7 million fine in the Car Battery Recycling cartel case.
The Commission issued its prohibition decision in February 2017. Two months later, the Commission issued a “correcting decision,” which addressed the initial decision’s failure to indicate the value of sales used in calculating the fine imposed on Eco-Bat. Upon receiving the correcting decision, Eco-Bat withdrew its original application for annulment—which, in any event, had been submitted one day late—and submitted a new application against the correcting decision. However, the General Court dismissed the second application on the grounds that it was submitted after the expiration of the applicable time limits, which, as the Court clarified, started running as of the date of the initial decision’s notification.
Before the Court of Justice, Eco-Bat maintained that the period for bringing an action for annulment should start running from the moment of receiving a “complete and correct” decision (i.e., in this case, with the correcting decision). The Court of Justice referred to its case law, according to which the Commission’s decision is considered to be properly notified when its addressee is “in a position to become acquainted with the content of that decision and the grounds on which it is based.” The Court of Justice concluded that the addressee of a decision may still become acquainted with its content and grounds even when the decision contains an error or omission.
Eco-Bat brought it to the Courts’ attention that at least in one other case the Commission informed the addressees of its decision that the time limit for an appeal would run anew as of the date of notification of the amended decision.
The General Court pointed out that the period for bringing an action for annulment, “as a result of the public-policy nature […] are not subject to the discretion of the parties.” The Court of Justice refused to review the General Court’s conclusion on this point, because Eco-Bat had not identified any error of law.
 Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission (Case C-312/18 P) EU:C:2019:235.
 Car Battery Recycling (Case COMP/AT.40018), Commission decision of February 8, 2017.
 Car Battery Recycling (Case COMP/AT.40018), Commission decision of April 6, 2017.
 Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission (T-361/17) EU:T:2018:173, para. 39.
 Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission (Case C-312/18 P) EU:C:2019:235, para. 27. See also Portugal v Commission (Case C-337/16 P) EU:C:2017:381, para. 47.
 See SP v Commission (Case T-472/09 and T-55/10), EU:T:2014:1040, para. 46.