Category: Commercial

Sot. Lelos Kai Sia, Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton and Others v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE (Competition): ECJ 16 Sep 2008

Europa Article 82 EC Abuse of dominant position – Pharmaceutical products – Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports – Ordinary orders.

C-477/06, [2008] EUECJ C-477/06, C-468/06, C-469/06, C-470/06, C-471/06, C-472/06, C-473/06, C-474/06, C-475/06, C-476/06, C-477/06, C-478/06
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.276394

Aalborg Portland A/S, Irish Cement Ltd, Ciments francais, Italcementi – Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA; Buzzi Unicem SpA; Cementir v Commission: ECJ 7 Jan 2004

Europa Appeal – Competition – Cement market – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Single and continuous infringement – Liability for an infringement – Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation – Fine – Determination of the amount.

C-204/00, C-205/00, [2004] EUECJ C-204/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-205/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-211/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-213/00P, [2004] EUECJ C-217/00P, C-211/00, C-213/00, C-217/00
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.192226

Budapest Bank and Others: ECJ 2 Apr 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Agreements – Article 101 (1) TFEU – Card payment systems – Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees – Agreement restricting competition both in terms of its object and effect – Concept of restriction competition ‘by object’

C-228/18, [2020] EUECJ C-228/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 265, [2019] EUECJ C-228/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654964

Arcelormittal Tubular Products Ostrava And Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co: ECJ 7 Apr 2016

(Judgment) Appeal – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 3(5), (7) and (9) – Article 6(1) – Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 – Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Determination of a threat of injury – Taking into account of post-investigation period data

C-186/14, [2016] EUECJ C-186/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:209
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 384/96
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561973

Eurofast v Commission: ECFI 18 Mar 2016

ECJ (Order) Interim measures – Grants – Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the grants – Debit note – Compensation Act – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of urgency

T-87/16, [2016] EUECJ T-87/16 – CO, ECLI:EU:T:2016:172
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561948

Xinyi Pv Products (Anhui) v Commission: ECFI 16 Mar 2016

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Market Economy Treatment (MET) – Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system – Tax incentives

T-586/14, [2016] EUECJ T-586/14, [2019] EUECJ T-586/14RENV
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561139

Italmobiliare v Commission: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Market cement and related products’ – Administrative procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 – Decision to request information – Motivation – Accuracy of demand

C-268/14, [2016] EUECJ C-268/14, ECLI:US:C:2016:152
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560961

Heidelbergcement v Commission: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Market for ‘cement and related products’ – Administrative procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18(1) and (3) – Decision requesting information – Statement of reasons – Clarification of the application

C-247/14, [2016] EUECJ C-247/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:149
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560960

Buzzi Unicem v Commission: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Market cement and related products’ – Administrative procedure – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 – Decision to request information – Motivation – Accuracy of demand

ECLI:EU:C:2016:151, C-267/14, [2016] EUECJ C-267/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560952

Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another: QBD 3 Oct 2011

The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the meaning of the Directive or the Regulations is a straightforward matter, to be determined by reference to the terms and the context of the agreement at the date it is concluded. The Regulations envisaged two types of Agent, but ‘None of this means that the non-derogable obligations of the commercial agent under article 3.1 and regulation 3(1), to look after the interests of the principal, and to act dutifully and in good faith, are to be imported into the definition of a commercial agent so that an agent acting for multiple principals does not fall within it.’ The correspondence indicated an implied term allowing the claimants to conduct additional competing agencies. The agreement was subject to the 1993 Regulations.

Cranston J
[2011] EWHC 2482 (QB)
Bailii
Commercial Agents Regulations 1993, Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crane T/A Indigital Satellite Services v Sky In-Home Service Ltd and Another ChD 26-Jan-2007
The Directive’s substantive provisions were modelled primarily on the provisions of German domestic law. . .
Cited – Sagal (T/A Bunz UK) v Atelier Bunz Gmbh CA 3-Jul-2009
The court was asked whether the the appellant was a commercial agent of the defendant within the regulations, and so would be entitled to compensation on termination of the agency.
Longmore LJ said: ‘It does not follow that every agent acting . .
Cited – Tamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jun-2000
Where self employed agents had been taken on to market the respondent’s services, and those agencies were terminated, such activities were those of commercial agents within the Directive, and they were entitled to compensation. Whether he was a . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Ingmar Gb Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc ECJ 16-Nov-2000
When a commercial agency was terminated in circumstances which under community law would entitle the agent to compensation, that compensation was payable even though the contract expressed itself to be governed by the law of California, and the . .
Cited – Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank HL 25-Oct-2001
The House was asked whether a contractual provision for interest to run after judgment as well as before in a consumer credit contract led to an unfair relationship.
Held: The term was not covered by the Act, and was not unfair under the . .
Cited – Crane (T/A Indigital Satelite Services) v Sky In-Home Ltd and Another CA 3-Jul-2008
Arden LJ considered the principles to be applied when considering whether a party to civil litigation should be allowed to appeal a trial judge’s decision on the basis that a claim, which could have been brought before him but was not, would have . .
Cited – Crane T/A Indigital Satellite Services v Sky In-Home Service Ltd and Another ChD 26-Jan-2007
The Directive’s substantive provisions were modelled primarily on the provisions of German domestic law. . .
Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd HL 1903
Tolhurst had contracted to sell a quantity of chalk from his quarries to the Imperial Company for fifty years. The Imperial Company afterwards assigned the Contract and sold its land, works and business to the Associated Company, and went into . .
Cited – AMB Imballaggi Plastici Srl v Pacflex Ltd CA 18-Jun-1999
A party who chose to contract as principal for the purpose of reselling the goods of the vendor on a speculative basis and for a profit, was not to be deemed to be a commercial agent of the first vendor, and so was not entitled to compensation on . .
Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Commercial

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.444873

UTi Worldwide And Others v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Feb 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – International air freight forwarding services – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Surcharges and tariff mechanisms having an impact on the final price of services – Errors of assessment – Proof – Whether trade between Member States affected – Appreciable effect on competition – Amount of the fine – Gravity of the infringement – Proportionality – Joint and several liability – Unlimited jurisdiction

T-264/12, [2016] EUECJ T-264/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:112
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560495

Panalpina World Transport (Holding) And Others v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Feb 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – International air freight forwarding services – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Price fixing – Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price – Fines – Proportionality – Gravity of the infringement – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons – Settlement – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines

T-270/12, [2016] EUECJ T-270/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:109
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560488

Schenker v Commission (Judgment): ECFI 29 Feb 2016

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – International air freight forwarding services – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Price fixing – Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price – Evidence contained in an application for immunity – Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients – Code of Conduct rules on duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation – Fiduciary duties – Whether trade between Member States affected – Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed – Choice of companies – Fines – Proportionality – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Equal treatment – Cooperation – Settlement – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines

[2016] EUECJ T-265/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:111
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560491

Toshiba Corporation v Commission: ECJ 20 Jan 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 101(1) TFEU – Power transformers market – Oral market-sharing agreement (‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’) – Restriction of competition ‘by object’ – Barriers to entry – Presumption of participation in an unlawful cartel – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) – Point 18

C-373/14, [2016] EUECJ C-373/14, [2015] EUECJ C-373/14
Bailii, Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559491

The Good Law Project Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (No.2) (Costs of Third Party Disclosure): TCC 14 Oct 2021

The Claimant, the Good Law Project, seeks judicial review in respect of the award of certain contracts by the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to the Interested Party (‘Abingdon’) for the manufacture and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests.

The Honourable Mr Justice Fraser
[2021] EWHC 2783 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.670704

Energeticky A Prumyslovy And Ep Investment Advisors v Commission: ECFI 26 Nov 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine – Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Presumption of innocence – Rights of the defence – Proportionality – Obligation to state reasons

T-272/12, [2014] EUECJ T-272/12, ECLI:EU:T:2014:995
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.539325

Singapore Airlines And Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-43/11, [2015] EUECJ T-43/11
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557033

SAS Cargo Group And Others v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-56/11, [2015] EUECJ T-56/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:990
Bailii
European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557030

Latam Airlines Group And Lan Cargo v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-40/11, [2015] EUECJ T-40/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:986
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557017

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-28/11, [2015] EUECJ T-28/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:995
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557014

Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission T-38/11: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

(Judgment) Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

[2015] EUECJ T-38/11
Bailii
European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556995

Japan Airlines v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-36/11, [2015] EUECJ T-36/11
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557012

Martinair Holland v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-67/11, [2015] EUECJ T-67/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:984
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557020

Air France v Commission: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Cartels – European market in air freight – Agreements and concerted practices on several elements of the prices of air cargo services (fuel surcharges establishment and security surcharges, refusal to pay a commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the Community and Switzerland on air transport – Obligation to state reasons

T-63/11, [2015] EUECJ T-63/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:993
Bailii
European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556984

Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v The Competition and Markets Authority and Another: SC 16 Dec 2015

The CMA had decided to intervene in purchases by the appellant from a competitor when it ceased trading.The French court had ordered the sale of the assts.
Held: UK law distinguishes between the acquisition of assets constituting a business and the acquisition of ‘bare’ assets. Concentrations arising from the acquisition of bare assets are not subject to statutory merger control ex ante, even if they have potentially adverse effects on competition, although they may be subject to heightened regulation
Held: The Authority’s appeal succeeded. The provisions of the 2002 Act which dealt with the control of mergers was not limited in its range to businesses still omngoing. The fact that the acquisition was of the assets of an insolvent, no longer trading, company did not exclude the Authority’s role. The decision of the CAT was restored.
The possession of relevant ‘activities’ is simply a descriptive characteristic of an enterprise. It may be characteristic of the enterprise notwithstanding that the activities are not actually being performed at the moment of the transaction, provided that there still exists the capacity to carry them on as part of the same business, whether in the hands of the existing proprietor or of someone else. That is why Sir Colin Rimer was right in his instinctive view that the sale of a seasonal business out of season would in principle be subject to statutory merger control.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 75, [2015] Bus LR 1573, [2015] WLR(D) 527, UKSC 2015/0127
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Enterprise Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – The Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal) CAT 20-Jan-2015
. .
Appeal from – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v Competition and Markets Authority CA 15-May-2015
The company appealed against the rejection of its challenge to a decision that the conditions had arisen allowing the defendant to intervene in its purchase of certain shares in a rival cross channel ferry company. he question was whether part of . .
See Also – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority CA 10-Jul-2015
The CA had earlier allowed an appeal by the company to hold the respondent’s decsion wrong that an event had occurred allowing it to intervene in the acquisition of a competitor’s assets. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court remained pending, but . .
Cited – Groupe Eurotunnel Sa v Competition Commission and Others CAT 4-Dec-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition Commission CAT 30-Aug-2013
. .
Restored – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-Jan-2015
Judgment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Company

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556978

Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo: ECJ 12 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Public service contracts – Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP – Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo – Action brought against the decision awarding the contract – Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU – Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Jurisdiction of the Court – Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU – Meaning of ‘bodies, offices or agencies of the Union’ – Measures attributable to the European Commission – Excusable error

C-439/13, [2015] EUECJ C-439/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:753, [2020] EUECJ C-439/13P-DEP_CO
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554650

CMAC Group UK Ltd v Abellio Trandport Holding Ltd and Others: TCC 17 Sep 2021

Lawfulness of invitations to tender and negotiate issued by or on behalf of a number of rail operating companies for replacement bus and taxi services. Such replacement services are required for use in the case of disruption to the rail network, whether planned disruption during maintenance works or on an emergency basis.

Mr Justice Pepperall
[2021] EWHC 2822 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.670700

Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A M Luther v James Sagor and Co: CA 1921

A claim was made as to property seized by a decree of Russian revolutionaries later recognised as the government.
Held: A court is required to recognise a foreign state’s dealings with private proprietary rights within its jurisdiction. An English court will recognise the compulsory acquisition law of a foreign state and will recognise the change of title to property which has come under the control of the foreign state and will recognise the consequences of that change of title.
Scrutton LJ said: ‘The courts in questions whether a particular person or institution is a sovereign must be guided only by the statement of the sovereign on whose behalf they exercise jurisdiction.’

Scrutton LJ
[1921] 3 KB 532
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mighell v Sultan of Johore CA 1-Dec-1893
In 1885 the Sultan of Johore came to England, and according to the plaintiff, Miss Mighell, took the name Albert Baker and promised to marry her.
Held: The Sultan was entitled to immunity even though up to the time of suit ‘he has perfectly . .
Cited – Oetjen v Central Leather Co 1918
(US Supreme Court) Animal hides were seized and sold to satisfy a monetary assessment to support the revolution, and there was an issue of title between an assignee from the original owner and a person deriving his claim to title from the purchaser . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte S P Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others (2) HL 17-Dec-2001
The claimants asserted that citrus fruit exported from Turkish Cyprus via Turkey, and certified in Turkey, should not be imported. Imports required phytosanitary certificates conforming to European standards. They asserted that the regulations . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
Cited – North Cyprus Tourism Centre Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Transport for London Admn 28-Jul-2005
The defendants had prevented the claimants from advertising their services in North Cyprus on their buses, and justified this saying that the Crown did not recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus since it was the result of an unlawful . .
Cited – Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2007
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not . .
Cited – Korea National Insurance Company v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty Ag ComC 18-Nov-2008
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment for payment of a sum under a policy of insurance. The defendant sought to refuse saying that the policy had been instigated by a fraud perpetrated by the state of North Korea, and or that the judicial system . .
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, International

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.183811

Messer UK Ltd and Another v Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd and others: CA 30 Apr 2002

The parties contracted for the supply of material to be used in the manufacture of drinks. The material was to be supplied according to a recognised British Standard.
Held: The use of the British Standard of itself was not sufficient to imply any warranty of satisfactory quality or fitness for purpose upon which a purchaser could rely. Nevertheless, the manufacturer could not rely upon a term excluding liability for breach of warranty under the 1979 Act since this term was unreasonable under the 1977 Act.

Tomlinson J
Times 22-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 548, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 335, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379
Bailii, Bailii
Sale of Goods Act 1979 14, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd ChD 2002
Britvic purchased bulk CO2 for the carbonation of various soft and alcoholic drinks from a supplier. The CO2 was manufactured by others. As a result of a breakdown of the manufacturing process, the CO2 contained a concentration of benzene which, . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd ChD 2002
Britvic purchased bulk CO2 for the carbonation of various soft and alcoholic drinks from a supplier. The CO2 was manufactured by others. As a result of a breakdown of the manufacturing process, the CO2 contained a concentration of benzene which, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Commercial

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.171228

The Corporation of Butchers in Edinburgh v The Magistrates of Edinburgh, and Corporation of Candle-Makers There: HL 29 Jun 1715

Burgh Royal – The Court of Session having found that the butchers of Edinburgh should be restrained from rinding tallow for sale, and that the magistrates could oblige them to sell their tallow at a certain price to the candle makers, which was in terms of a bye-law of the magistrates, ratified by a private act of parliament the judgment is reversed. This act was not sufficient to restrain the butchers from melting or rinding their tallow.

[1715] UKHL Robertson – 124, (1715) Robertson 124
Bailii

Scotland, Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553482

Post Danmark: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 82 EC – Abuse of a dominant position – Market for the distribution of bulk mail – Direct advertising mail – Retroactive rebate scheme – Exclusionary effect – ‘As-efficient-competitor’ test – Degree of likelihood and seriousness of an anti-competitive effect

C-23/14, [2015] EUECJ C-23/14
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553102

Corporacion Empresarial De Materiales De Construccion v Commission: ECFI 6 Oct 2015

Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sodium chlorate market in the EEA – Amending decision reducing the determined duration of participation in the cartel – Calculation of the amount of the fine – Whether time-barred – Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003

T-250/12, [2015] EUECJ T-250/12
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553092

Agroexpansion v Commission: ECFI 12 Oct 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Spain’s first purchase and processing of raw tobacco – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price fixing and market sharing – Fine – Liability of unlawful conduct – Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover – Deterrent effect – Equal treatment – Attenuating circumstances – Cooperation

T-38/05, [2011] EUECJ T-38/05
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.445413

Association Belge Des Consommateurs Test-Achats v Commission: ECFI 12 Oct 2011

ECFI Competition – Concentrations – Belgian energy market – Decision declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market – Commitments given during the initial phase of the investigation – Decision refusing the partial referral of the merger investigation to the national authorities – Action for annulment – Consumer association – Interest in bringing proceedings – Failure to initiate the in-depth review procedure – Procedural rights – Inadmissibility

T-224/10, [2011] EUECJ T-224/10
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.445417

Alliance One International v Commission: ECFI 12 Oct 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Fines – Attributability of the unlawful conduct – Maximum limit of 10% of turnover – Deterrent effect – Attenuating circumstances

T-41/05, [2011] EUECJ T-41/05
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.445416

Cetarsa v Commission (Competition): ECFI 3 Feb 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Spanish for the purchase and initial processing of raw tobacco – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market sharing – Fines – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Equality treatment – Principle of proportionality – Maximum limit of 10% of sales – Cooperation.

T-33/05, [2011] EUECJ T-33/05
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.428489

Bricmate AB v Tullverket: ECJ 10 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commercial policy – Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 – Validity – Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 17 and 20(1) – Determination of the injury and of the causal link – Errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment – Obligation to exercise due care – Examination of the evidence sent by a sampled importer – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence

M Ilesic P
C-569/13, [2015] EUECJ C-569/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:572
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 917/2011, Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
European

Commercial, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552169

Toshiba v Commission: ECFI 9 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production – Proof of participation in the cartel – Single and continuous infringement – Imputability of the infringement – Joint control – Fines – Unlimited jurisdiction)

S. Papasavvas (Rapporteur), P
T-104/13, [2015] EUECJ T-104/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:610
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552095

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Commission: ECFI 9 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production – Single and continuous infringement – Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture – Equal treatment – Method of calculating the fine – Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products – Taking into account the average value of sales recorded during the infringement – Taking into account the overall turnover of the group – Proportionality – Duration of the administrative procedure

T-92/13, [2015] EUECJ T-92/13
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552091

LG Electronics v Commission: ECFI 9 Sep 2015

Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production – Single and continuous infringement – Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture – Equal treatment – Method of calculating the fine – Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products – Limitation period – Proportionality – Duration of the administrative procedure

S. Papasavvas (Rapporteur), P
T-91/13, [2015] EUECJ T-91/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:609
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552087

Germany v Commission: ECJ 9 Jul 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Principle of non-discrimination – Abuse of dominant position – Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Inadmissibility

C-360/14, [2015] EUECJ C-360/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:436
Bailii

European, Human Rights, Commercial

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550000

The Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal): CAT 20 Jan 2015

[2015] CAT 2
Bailii
Enterprise Act 2002 120
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel Sa v Competition Commission and Others CAT 4-Dec-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition Commission CAT 30-Aug-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-Jan-2015
Judgment . .

Cited by:
See Also – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v Competition and Markets Authority CA 15-May-2015
The company appealed against the rejection of its challenge to a decision that the conditions had arisen allowing the defendant to intervene in its purchase of certain shares in a rival cross channel ferry company. he question was whether part of . .
See Also – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority CA 10-Jul-2015
The CA had earlier allowed an appeal by the company to hold the respondent’s decsion wrong that an event had occurred allowing it to intervene in the acquisition of a competitor’s assets. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court remained pending, but . .
See Also – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v The Competition and Markets Authority and Another SC 16-Dec-2015
The CMA had decided to intervene in purchases by the appellant from a competitor when it ceased trading.The French court had ordered the sale of the assts.
Held: UK law distinguishes between the acquisition of assets constituting a business . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.549884

Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority: CAT 9 Jan 2015

Judgment

Roth J, Professor John Beath and Ms Joanne Stuart
[2015] CAT 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition Commission CAT 30-Aug-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel Sa v Competition Commission and Others CAT 4-Dec-2013
. .

Cited by:
See Also – The Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal) CAT 20-Jan-2015
. .
See Also – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v Competition and Markets Authority CA 15-May-2015
The company appealed against the rejection of its challenge to a decision that the conditions had arisen allowing the defendant to intervene in its purchase of certain shares in a rival cross channel ferry company. he question was whether part of . .
See Also – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority CA 10-Jul-2015
The CA had earlier allowed an appeal by the company to hold the respondent’s decsion wrong that an event had occurred allowing it to intervene in the acquisition of a competitor’s assets. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court remained pending, but . .
Restored – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v The Competition and Markets Authority and Another SC 16-Dec-2015
The CMA had decided to intervene in purchases by the appellant from a competitor when it ceased trading.The French court had ordered the sale of the assts.
Held: UK law distinguishes between the acquisition of assets constituting a business . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.549883

HCA International Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal and Stay): CAT 11 Feb 2015

Application for permission to appeal in relation to the Tribunal’s ruling in HCA International Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority [2014] CAT 23 (the ‘Ruling’) and HCA’s related application for an order to stay further steps in relation to the decisions and the part of the private healthcare market investigation which have been remitted to the Competition and Markets Authority (‘CMA’) for further consideration.

Sales LJ
[2015] CAT 3
Bailii

Commercial

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.549885

Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission: ECJ 24 Jun 2015

ECJ Judgment – Appeals – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European banana market – Coordination in the setting of quotation prices – Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies – Concept of ‘decisive influence’ – Whether the conduct of one company may be imputed to another – Distortion of evidence – Burden of proof – Principle of in dubio pro reo – Concept of ‘single and continuous infringement’ – Concept of ‘concerted practice’ – Concept of ‘infringement by object’ – Undertakings that are members of the same cartel – Communication of information to the Commission – Legal obligation – Scope – Protection against self- incrimination – Intervener at first instance – Cross-appeal – Admissibility

C-293/13, [2015] EUECJ C-293/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:416
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549452

Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission: ECFI 16 Jun 2015

ECJ Order – Interim measures – Competition – Cartels – Market bioethanol and ethanol – Administrative procedure – Injunction to submit to an inspection – Refusal to suspend investigative measures – Application for interim measures – Inadmissible

T-274/15, [2015] EUECJ T-274/15 – CO, [2018] EUECJ T-274/15
Bailii, Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549239

FSL And Others v Commission: ECFI 16 Jun 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European banana market in Italy, Greece and Portugal – Coordination in the fixing of prices – Admissibility of evidence – Rights of defence – Misuse of powers – Evidence of the infringement – Calculation of the fine

T-655/11, [2015] EUECJ T-655/11
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549053

Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others: ComC 10 Apr 2003

The Claimant sought damages for breach of the Rome Treaty Articles 82 and 81. His shipping company had faced organised anti-competitive attempts by the respondents to put him out of business.
Held: A cause of action for breach of a statutory duty first arises when the breach causes damage to the claimant: ‘In this connection it is important to recognise that there are different ways in which such a breach may cause damage. Thus, an isolated event amounting to such a breach may cause a chain of damage development commencing when the effects of the breach first affect the claimant, and those [effects] may continue for a long period of time. If that period commences prior to the cut-off date for the purposes of the period of limitation, the claim will prima facie be time-barred notwithstanding that the effects of the breach may continue beyond that date. The position is similar to a claim in tort for negligence. By contrast, there may be a continuing or repeated breach of statutory duty, over an extended period, such as an unlawful emission of toxic fumes which continues to affect and injure those exposed to it over the whole period of that breach. In such a case, if the limitation cut-off date occurs during the period, the claimant’s cause of action for the damage suffered after the date in question will not be time-barred.’
Colman J concluded that the case before him fell into the latter category.

Colman J
[2003] EWHC 687 (Comm), [2000] EuLR 232, [2003] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 225
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Yeheskel Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd ComC 11-Nov-1999
A claimant in an action for damages for breaches of Articles 85, 86 of Rome Treaty, who had previously complained of such breaches to the European Commission but failed to complain of matters subsequently, attempted to raise in an action is . .

Cited by:
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
See Also – Arkin v Borchard Lines Limited Andzim Israel Navigation Company Ltd and others v Managers and Processors of Claims QBD 27-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Chester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Transport, Limitation

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.180760

Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission: ECFI 20 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European market for animal feed phosphates – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU – Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information – Applicant’s withdrawal from the settlement procedure – Fines – Obligation to state reasons – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Cooperation – Failure to apply the likely range of fines indicated during the settlement procedure

T-456/10, [2015] EUECJ T-456/10, ECLI:EU:T:2015:296
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547049

Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v Competition and Markets Authority: CA 15 May 2015

The company appealed against the rejection of its challenge to a decision that the conditions had arisen allowing the defendant to intervene in its purchase of certain shares in a rival cross channel ferry company. he question was whether part of the activities of the business of SeaFrance, or just a collection of its assets, was to be acquired. The SCOP contended that the CMA had erred in law in concluding that the statutory conditions for its intervention had arisen. The challenge was on the technical question of statutory jurisdiction.
Held: (Arden LJ dissenting), SCOP’s appeal succeeded. The CMA had been irrationally wrong to find that SeaFrance’s ‘activities’ had come under the ownership or control of GET/SCOP and that therefore it had no jurisdiction to find that a ‘relevant merger situation’ had arisen.
The definition of an ‘enterprise’ as meaning ‘the activities or part of the activities of a business’ showed that ‘Parliament’s intention was focused only on the case in which the acquiring entity takes over another business as a going concern’.

Arden, Tomlinson LJJ, Sir Colin Rimer
[2015] EWCA Civ 487
Bailii
Enterprise Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – The Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority (Ruling (Permission To Appeal) CAT 20-Jan-2015
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel Sa v Competition Commission and Others CAT 4-Dec-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition Commission CAT 30-Aug-2013
. .
See Also – Groupe Eurotunnel SA v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-Jan-2015
Judgment . .

Cited by:
Cited – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance SA v Competition and Markets Authority CA 10-Jul-2015
The CA had earlier allowed an appeal by the company to hold the respondent’s decsion wrong that an event had occurred allowing it to intervene in the acquisition of a competitor’s assets. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court remained pending, but . .
Appeal from – Societe Cooperative De Production Seafrance Sa v The Competition and Markets Authority and Another SC 16-Dec-2015
The CMA had decided to intervene in purchases by the appellant from a competitor when it ceased trading.The French court had ordered the sale of the assts.
Held: UK law distinguishes between the acquisition of assets constituting a business . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Commercial

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546829

Niki Luftfahrt v Commission – T-162/10: ECFI 13 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Concentrations – Air transport – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition – Commitments

D. Gratsias, P
T-162/10, [2015] EUECJ T-162/10, ECLI: EU: T: 2015: 283
Bailii

European, Commercial, Transport

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546606

LG Display And LG Display Taiwan v Commission: ECJ 23 Apr 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels – Price-fixing – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) – Point 13 – Determination of value of sales – Joint venture – Taking sales to parent companies into account – Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) – Point 23(b), final paragraph – Partial immunity from fines – Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission

A. O Caoimh (Rapporteur), P
C-227/14, [2015] EUECJ C-227/14
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546110

Tesco Stores Ltd and Others v Mastercard Incorporated and Others: ChD 24 Apr 2015

The claimant alleged breach by the several defendants of EU and domestic competion law in relation to the MasterCard Defendants’ imposition of multilateral interchange fees (‘MIFs’) in the course of operating the MasterCard credit card system. Four of the defendants now sought the summary striking out of the claim as being without hope of success and out of time.

Asplin DBE J
[2015] EWHC 1145 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Commercial, Limitation

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545926

Dole Food And Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission: ECJ 19 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Appeals – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European banana market – Coordination in the setting of quotation prices – Obligation to state reasons – Belated statement of reasons – Belated submission of evidence – Rights of defence – Principle of equality of arms – Principles governing the establishment of the facts – Distortion of the facts – Assessment of the evidence – Market structure – Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object – Burden of proof – Calculation of the fine – Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account – Sales of the same bananas counted twice

C-286/13, [2015] EUECJ C-286/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:184
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544889

Chin Haur Indonesia v Council: ECFI 19 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia – Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Circumvention – Failure to cooperate – Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment

T-412/13, [2015] EUECJ T-412/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:163
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 13 18
European

Commercial, Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544887

Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission: ECFI 17 Mar 2015

ECJ (Judgment (Extracts)) State aid – State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Hesse – Action for annulment – Letter addressed to the complainants – Non-actionable measure – Inadmissible – Decision finding no State aid – Absence of opening the formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Calculation of the aid element of public guarantees – Commission Communication on State aid in the form of guarantees – Firm in difficulty – Sale of public property – Rights of defense – Obligation to state reasons’

H. Kanninen, P
T-89/09, [2015] EUECJ T-89/09
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544344

Deutsche Borse v Commission: ECFI 9 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Concentrations – Financial instruments sector – European derivatives market – Decision declaring that the concentration is incompatible with the internal market – Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition – Efficiency gains – Commitments

S. Papasavvas (Rapporteur), P
T-175/12, [2015] EUECJ T-175/12, ECLI:EU:T:2015:148
Bailii
European

Commercial, Financial Services

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544272

Intercity Telecom Ltd and Another v Solanki: Merc 27 Feb 2015

Claim for damages for breach of contract and database rights, delivery up of confidential information and injunctive relief against Mr Solanki, a former employee of the Claimants.
Held: The court having refused a request for adjournment applied for on medical grounds, proceeded in the defendant’s absence and found in favour of the claimant and awarded damages and costs.

Simon Brown QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC B3 (Mercantile), [2015] 2 Costs LR 315
Bailii
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 3A(1), Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd CA 9-Feb-2018
The claimant appealed from orders refusing an adjournment of a hearing and for costs.
Held: The judge had not given proper weight to the medical evidence produced by the claimant, and the costs claimed had been excessive and may have referred . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Employment

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543654

Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale RM/C: ECJ 11 Sep 2008

Commercial transactions Directive 2000/35/EC – Combating of late payment Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims

P. Jann, P
[2008] EUECJ C-265/07
Bailii
Directive 2000/35/EC
Citing:
Opinion – Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale RM/C ECJ 24-Apr-2008
ECJ Opinion – Law Relating To Undertakings – Directive 2000/35 Article 5, paragraph 1 – Fight against late payments in commercial transactions Recovery Procedure unchallenged claims – Delay in obtaining an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542331

Teva Pharma And Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA: ECFI 22 Jan 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Medicinal products for human use – Orphan medicinal products – Application for marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib – EMA decision refusing to validate the application for marketing authorisation – Market exclusivity

S. Frimodt Nielsen (Rapporteur), P
T-140/12, [2015] EUECJ T-140/12
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541744

Pilkington Group And Others v Commission: ECFI 17 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European market in carglass – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information – Fines – Rights of defence — Retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Value of sales – Passive or minor role – Deterrent effect of the fine – Taking into account fines previously imposed – Ceiling of the fine – Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine

T-72/09, [2014] EUECJ T-72/09, ECLI:EU:T:2014:1094
Bailii
European

Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540234

Hansen and Rosenthal and H and R Wax Company Vertrieb v Commission: ECFI 12 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements – paraffin waxes market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price fixing – Proof of infringement – Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines 2006 – Rights of defense – Calculation of the value of sales – Gravity of the infringement – Non-retroactivity – Equal treatment – Proportionality

T-544/08, [2014] EUECJ T-544/08
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539903

Repsol Lubricantes Y Especialidades and Others v Commission: ECFI 12 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements – paraffin waxes market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Proof of the existence of the agreement – Duration of the infringement – 2006 Guidelines for the calculation of fines – Equal treatment – Presumption of innocence – Liability for unlawful conduct – Responsibility of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries – Decisive influence exercised by the parent company – Presumption who hold a 100% interest ‘

O. Czucz (Rapporteur), P
T-562/08, [2014] EUECJ T-562/08, ECLI: EU: T: 2014 1078
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539916

H and R Chempharm v Commission: ECFI 12 Dec 2014

Judgment – Competition – Agreements – paraffin waxes market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price fixing – Proof of the infringement – Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines 2006 – Reference period – Calculation the value of sales – Gravity of the infringement – Concentration during the period of the infringement – Equal treatment – Proportionality

T-551/08, [2014] EUECJ T-551/08
Bailii
European

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539902

Riva Fire v Commission: ECFI 9 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Cartels – Market reinforcing bar in bars or rolls – Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Fixing Price and payment terms – Limiting or controlling production or sales – Breach of essential procedural – Powers of the Commission – Legal basis – Consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions – Rights of the defense – Geographic Market Definition – Application of the principle of lex mitior – Violation of Article 65 CS – Fines – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Proportionality – Implementation of the Communication on the 1996 cooperation

T-83/10, [2014] EUECJ T-83/10
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539809

Alfa Acciai v Commission: ECFI 9 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Cartels – Markets concrete reinforcing bars in bars or rolls – Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Fixing prices and payment terms – Limiting or controlling production or sales – Excess of authority – Rights of the defense – Single and continuous infringement – Fines – Determination of the starting amount – Mitigating circumstances – Duration of the administrative procedure

T-85/10, [2014] EUECJ T-85/10, ECLI:EU:T:2014:1037
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539793

Ferriere Nord v Commission: ECFI 9 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Cartels – Market reinforcing bar in bars or rolls – Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Fixing Price and payment terms – Limiting or controlling production or sales – Breach of essential procedural – Powers of the Commission – Rights of the defense – the offense Finding – Fines – Recidivism – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation – Unlimited jurisdiction

T-90/10, [2014] EUECJ T-90/10, ECLI: EU: T: 2014: 1035
Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539801