A Ahlstrom Osakeyhtio And Others v Commission Of The European Communities: ECJ 27 Sep 1988

The court considered the territorial scope of Articles 81 and 82. in the context of producers outside the Community selling to purchasers established in the Community. The external producers had engaged in price fixing and therefore restricted competition. The Commission had determined that there had been an infringement of Article 85. On appeal they argued that such a finding was inconsistent with public international law.
Held: The contention was not accepted. Infringement of Article 81 involved two elements, namely the agreement, decision or concerted practice on the one hand and its implementation on the other: ‘If the applicability of prohibitions laid down under competition law were made to depend on the place where the agreement, decision or concerted practice was formed, the result would obviously be to give undertakings an easy means of evading those prohibitions. The decisive factor is therefore the place where it is implemented.
The producers in this case implemented their pricing agreement within the common market. It is immaterial in that respect whether or not they had recourse to subsidiaries, agents, sub-agents, or branches within the Community in order to make their contacts with purchasers within the Community.
Accordingly the Community’s jurisdiction to apply its competition rules to such conduct is covered by the territoriality principle as universally recognized in public international law.’

Citations:

C-129/85, [1988] EUECJ C-129/85, [1988] ECR 5193

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedGencor Ltd v Commission ECFI 25-Mar-1999
ECFI Council Regulation 4064/89, Article 2(3) provided that there should be declared to be incompatible with the common market: ‘A concentration which creates or strengthens a dominant position as a result of . .
CitedAdidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215629