In December 2010, the College of Prosecutors dismissed a complaint by an unknown party against Omega Pharma for abuse of dominance, on grounds of expiration of the statute of limitations. The complainant appealed the dismissal and the Competition Council issued its decision on 21 April 2011. The dismissal was based on the fact that no investigative measures had been taken since 2004, and hence that the statutory 5 year limit had expired. The Competition Council reversed the dismissal, arguing that in case of a continuous infringement, the statute of limitations only starts running as of the day on which the infringement ceases, and not as of the day of the last investigative measure. According to the Competition Council, the complainant had adduced sufficient facts to conclude that the alleged infringement had not ceased after the complaint was filed. The College of Prosecutors had thus wrongly calculated the limitation period. The dismissal decision was annulled and the case was sent back to the College of Prosecutors for further investigation and adoption of a report on the merits of the complaint.