ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Notified agreement – Third generation of mobile telecommunications – Negative clearance – Individual exemption – Analysis of the situation in the absence of an agreement – Impact of the agreement on competition
T-328/03, [2006] EUECJ T-328/03
European
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241363
Application for leave to appeal.
Kennedy, Dyson LLJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 286
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.200824
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, and was mistaken in confining their analysis to the bus market. The claim failed.
Rimer J
[2007] EWHC 1373 (Ch)
Competition Act 1998 18, Transport Act 1985
England and Wales
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission ECJ 13-Feb-1979
ECJ Observance of the right to be heard is required in all proceedings in which sanctions, in particular fines or penalty payments, may be imposed as a fundamental principle of community law. It must be respected . .
Cited – AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 3-Jul-1991
Europa Regard for the rights of the defence requires that the undertaking concerned shall have been enabled to make known effectively its point of view on the documents relied upon by the Commission in making the . .
Cited – 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 – Toth v Jarman CA 19-Jul-2006
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for nervous shock, associated with the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor in treating his son. It was said that the medical expert had not disclosed a conflict of interest.
Held: . .
Cited – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 26-Mar-2002
Judgment regarding reasons for refusing permission to appeal – dismissed with costs. . .
Cited – Ineos Vinyls Ltd and Others v Huntsman Petrochemicals (UK) Ltd ChD 26-May-2006
. .
Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.253462
ECJ Opinion – Directive 93/36/EEC – Public supply contracts – Award of contract without a call for tenders – Award of the contract to an undertaking in which the contracting authority has a shareholding.
Stix-Hackl AG
C-340/04, [2006] EUECJ C-340/04, [2006] 3 CMLR 7
European
Cited – Tachie and Others v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2013
The three appellants each challenged decisions refusing their homelessness reviews, saying that the decisions had been made by outside contracters and were unlawful.
Held: The company was a subsidiary of the Council, and the Teckal exception . .
Cited – Brent London Borough Council and Others v Risk Management Partners Ltd SC 9-Feb-2011
The council had put out to tender its insurance requirements. The respondent submitted its bid. The council then withdrew the tender in order to take up membership of a mutual company providing such services created by local authorities in London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241698
Lord Eassie
[2004] ScotCS 52
Scotland
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.194379
ECJ Appeals – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 81 EC – Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 – Distribution of Opel motor vehicles – Partitioning of the market – Restrictions on exports – Restrictive bonus policy – Fine – Guidelines for the calculation of fines.
C-551/03, [2006] EUECJ C-551/03
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240147
Whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal was right to adopt the starting point that costs should follow the event in an appeal brought under section 192 of the Communications Act 2003.
[2018] EWCA Civ 2542
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.628692
Sir Christopher Bellamy said: ‘. . the question whether a certain pricing practice by a dominant undertaking is to be regarded as abusive for the purposes of Chapter II is a matter to be looked at in the round, taking particularly into account (i) whether the dominant undertaking has had ‘recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators . .’ and (ii) whether such conduct has the effect of weakening or distorting competition in the relevant market, having regard to the special responsibility of a dominant firm not to impair genuine undistorted competition.’
Sir Christopher Bellamy
[2002] CAT 11
See Also – Aberdeen Journals Limited v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Oct-2001
CAT Judgment on location of the proceedings. . .
Cited – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Jan-2002
. .
Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
See Also – Aberdeen Journals Limited v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 19-Mar-2002
A decision of the Director General was set aside and the matter remitted to the DGFT, with a direction that a new notice under the then relevant rules be issued within 2 months. . .
Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another CA 2-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236658
Europa (Competition) Competition – Cartels – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Effective capacity of the offender to cause significant damage to other operators – Attenuating circumstances – Leniency Notice.
T-48/02, [2005] EUECJ T-48/02
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235843
[2005] CAT 35
England and Wales
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications -[2005] CAT 14 CAT 27-May-2005
. .
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Jul-2005
. .
Appeal from – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235354
[2005] CAT 33
England and Wales
See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 17-Feb-2006
. .
See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 20-Nov-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231362
[2005] CAT 28
England and Wales
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications -[2005] CAT 14 CAT 27-May-2005
. .
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230161
[2004] CAT 25
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230169
ECJ Competition – Article 81 EC – Cartels – contract of agency agreement – Distribution of motor vehicles – Economic unit – Measures designed to hinder parallel trade in motor vehicles – Price fixing – Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 – Fine
T-325/01, [2005] EUECJ T-325/01
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, EC Treaty 81
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230042
Judgment on request for interim relief.
In principle, prices are excessive if they ‘are higher than would be expected in a competitive market’ and ‘there is no effective competitive pressure to bring them down to competitive levels, nor is there likely to be.’
[2001] CAT 1, 1000/1/1/01(IR)
England and Wales
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Jan-2002
. .
Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another CA 2-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 10-Jul-2001
Judgment on application to extend time for service of defence. . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 8-Aug-2001
Judgment on application to disallow parts of the defence. . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 6-Feb-2002
Judgment on interest and costs. . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 26-Mar-2002
Judgment regarding reasons for refusing permission to appeal – dismissed with costs. . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading CA 8-May-2002
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal.
Held: Since the decision of the tribunal did not involve questions of law, it fell exactly within the Cooke case, and the court should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194044
ECJ Cartels – Luxembourg beer market – Fines
T-50/02, [2005] EUECJ T-50/02
See Also – Brasserie Nationale v Commission (Competition) ECFI 27-Jul-2005
ECJ Cartels – Luxembourg beer market – Fines . .
See Also – Brasserie Nationale v Commission (Competition) French Text ECFI 27-Jul-2005
ECJ Cartels – Luxembourg beer market – Fines . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229134
ECJ Cartels – Luxembourg beer market – Fines
T-51/02, [2005] EUECJ T-51/02
See Also – Brasserie Nationale v Commission (Competition) ECFI 27-Jul-2005
ECJ Cartels – Luxembourg beer market – Fines . .
See Also – Brasserie Nationale v Commission (Competition) ECFI 27-Jul-2005
ECJ Cartels – Luxembourg beer market – Fines . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229135
(Commercial Policy)
C-26/00, [2005] EUECJ C-26/00
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228835
(Commercial Policy) Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories – Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa – Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 – Action for annulment – Safeguard measures – Proportionality
[2005] EUECJ C-452/00
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228836
ECJ Approximation of laws – Food supplements – Directive 2002/46/EC – Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive – Validity – Legal basis – Article 95 EC – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 – Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment – Right to property – Freedom to pursue an economic activity – Obligation to state reasons).
The applicants complained that the Directive on food supplements was unlawful or invalid.
Held: The object of the directive was to ensure uniformity, and as that was itself a proper aim insofar as the contrary would work against the free movement of products within the EEC. Given the need for public safety, it was proportionate to limit the free trade in food supplements to those for which there was sufficient data for a favourable opinion to be given.
As to EU measures establishing authorisation procedures, for example for the use of particular substances, the court will require that the procedures reflect principles of sound administration and legal certainty: ‘Such a procedure must be accessible in the sense that it must be expressly mentioned in a measure of general application which is binding on the authorities concerned. It must be capable of being completed within a reasonable time. An application to have a substance included on a list of authorised substances may be refused by the competent authorities only on the basis of a full assessment of the risk posed to public health by the substance, established on the basis of the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research. If the procedure results in a refusal, the refusal must be open to challenge before the courts.’
C-154/04, [2005] EUECJ C-154/04, C-155/04, [2005] EUECJ C-155/04, Times 15-Jul-2005
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228447
(Competition)
C-207/02, [2005] EUECJ C-207/02
European
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-206/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
See also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission (Competition) ECJ 28-Jun-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227966
(Competition)
C-205/02, [2005] EUECJ C-205/02
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227964
(Competition)
[2005] EUECJ C-206/02
European
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-207/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-213/02 ECFI 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227965
(Competition)
[2005] EUECJ C-202/02
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227963
(Competition)
[2005] EUECJ C-213/02
European
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-206/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-189/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227968
(Competition)
[2005] EUECJ C-189/02
European
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-213/02 ECFI 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227962
Assorted sherry producers and shippers to write to producers and importers of ‘British Sherry’ asking them to stop using the word ‘sherry’ other than in relation to wines emanating from the Jerez district of Spain. Those producers and importers to begin proceedings for a declaration that they were entitled to describe their wines as ‘British Sherry’, this being something they had done for very many years. The sherry producers then counterclaimed for an injunction to restrain the producers and importers of British sherry from passing off their wine as and for wine produced in Jerez.
Held: despite the long established and widespread use of the expressions ‘British Sherry’ and ‘South African Sherry’ and the like, the word ‘sherry’ standing alone still denoted a wine from the Jerez district of Spain and not a type of wine or alcoholic drink which might be produced anywhere or in any way. Nevertheless, it remained to be considered whether objection could now be raised to the use of the expression ‘British Sherry’. The judge concluded it could not because the Spanish producers had delayed while the producers and importers of British sherry had built up a substantial goodwill, and in consequence it would be unjust to prevent the further use of the expression. However, there had been no acquiescence in the use of the term ‘sherry’ simpliciter and so an injunction would be granted to restrain the use of that word otherwise than as part of a composite phrase such as ‘British Sherry’ or ‘South African Sherry’.
There was no distinction in principle between a champagne shipper and a sherry shipper and a claimant had to establish in a claim of this sort was that the district in which the goods in question were produced and which gave the goods their name was defined with reasonable precision.
Cross J said of the Bollinger case: ‘The decision went beyond the well trodden paths of passing-off into the area of ‘unfair trading’ or ‘unfair competition”. And: ‘That being, as I see it, the scope of the decision in the Spanish Champagne case, it remains to see how far, if at all, it applies to the facts of this case. It was not suggested by the plaintiffs that there was any distinction to be drawn between a Champagne shipper and a sherry shipper so far as concerned his title to bring the action. No doubt a plaintiff in this sort of action must establish that the district in which goods in question were produced and which gives the goods their name is defined with reasonable precision either by law or custom. The court must obviously be in a position to decide in case of dispute whether or not any given plaintiff is a producer in the district in question. But the evidence in this case shows that there would not be the least difficulty in saying whether or not anyone claiming to be producer and shipper of ‘sherry’ was entitled to be so described. It can, of course, make no difference in this connection that the boundaries of the district are not static but are liable to change, provided that there is no uncertainty as to when this change occurs and what is its extent. Thus the fact that Montilla used to be classed as sherry but now has its own separate system of control does not affect the question at issue one way or another.’
Cross J
[1969] RPC 1
England and Wales
Cited – Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd 1960
Intruders into the market brought into England a wine somewhat similar to Champagne. It had been produced in the Costa Brava district of Spain. They marketed it under the name ‘Spanish Champagne’. The French growers and shippers brought an action to . .
Cited – Chocosuisse, Kraft Jacobs Suchard (Schweiz) Ag, Chocoladefabriken Lindt and Sprungli (Schweiz) Ag v Cadbury Limited PatC 29-Oct-1997
The plaintiffs brought actions in passing off against the defendant company in respect of their chocolate products. They objected to the use of the terms ‘Swiss Chocolate’ applied to chocolates not made in Switzerland.
Held: The claimant had . .
Cited – HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.239099
[2019] CAT 6
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 15-Nov-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 7-Sep-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (8) CAT 26-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 9-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636206
[2019] CAT 8
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636204
[2018] CAT 4
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636184
[2018] CAT 8
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 9-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 7-Sep-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 15-Nov-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (6) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636187
[2018] CAT 7
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (8) CAT 26-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 7-Sep-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 15-Nov-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (6) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636186
Europa (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import – Marketing authorisation.
[2005] EUECJ C-317/03
European
See Also – HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-299/03 ECJ 9-Jun-2005
ECJ (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226096
ECJ (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import – Marketing authorisation.
[2005] EUECJ C-318/03, C-211/03, C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03
European
See Also – HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-317/03 ECJ 9-Jun-2005
Europa (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226097
Europa Approximation of Laws – Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import – Marketing authorisation.
[2005] EUECJ C-316/03
European
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226095
[2005] CAT 5
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225347
[2005] CAT 11
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225356
[2005] CAT 14
England and Wales
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Jul-2005
. .
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225361
[2005] CAT 4
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225346
Applications for security for costs.
Sir Christopher Bellamy (President)
[2005] CAT 2
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
. .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and others CAT 25-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages after the defendants had been found to be part of an unlawful price maintenance cartel. The respondent argued that the claim was out of time.
Held: The claim could proceed. . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd v Basf Se CAT 17-Oct-2008
The Tribunal unanimously decided that ‘the relevant date’ under rule 31(2) of the Tribunal Rules for the purposes of the Claimants’ claim fell on the expiry of the period during which an appeal against the relevant judgment of the CFI could have . .
See Also (CAT costs) – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se and Others CA 22-May-2009
The claimant sought to bring an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of competition rules by the defendant. The defendant argued that the claim was out of time being outside the two year period required.
Held: The respondent’s . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others Basf Se (Formerly Basf Ag) and Others CAT 19-Nov-2009
The claimants wished to claim damages arising from the participation by the defendants in an unlawful cartel. The Court of Appeal had said that the claim was out of time, and that the claimants would have to seek an extension of time to bring their . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se (Formerly BASF Ag) and Others CAT 12-Feb-2010
. .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v Basf Se (Formerly Basf Ag) and Others CAT 12-Feb-2010
. .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and Others CA 12-Nov-2010
. .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Plc and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
The claimant sought damages after it had been established in 2001 that the defendants had engaged in an unlawful cartel to maintain the prices of vitamins. The defendants had paid fines, and now argued that the claims, begun in 2008, were out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225344
The dispute giving rise to the appeal had been between BT and Vodafone, which had supported the Office of Communications. Although BT had been successful, the tribunal refused to award it its costs.
Held: The Tribunal’s Rules conferred an unrestricted power to make such award of costs as it thought fit: ‘CPR Part 44.3(2), which provides that the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party but the court may make a different order, is not replicated in the Tribunal’s Rules and consequently does not apply to the Tribunal. Parliament has not created any presumption that in proceedings before the Tribunal costs should ‘follow the event’.’ and ‘we have to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the fact that BT has been successful, and on the other hand, the various considerations mentioned above. Rule 55 gives the Tribunal a wide discretion. Our judgment is that where OFCOM has determined a dispute in accordance with the procedure in the 1997 Regulations, and could have been appealed against by either side, it would not be right to order OFCOM to pay BT’s costs in circumstances where OFCOM defended the appeal entirely reasonably and wider public interests were involved. BT has benefited commercially from the stance which it legitimately took. We do not consider that BT will suffer material financial hardship if the costs of this case are treated as part of the general regulatory costs which BT incurs by virtue of the fact that it has significant market power.’
[2005] CAT 20
England and Wales
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225359
[2005] CAT 17
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225362
[2005] CAT 12
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225363
[2005] CAT 19
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225355
[2005] CAT 21
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225360
[2005] CAT 18
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225354
[2005] CAT 15
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225357
[2005] CAT 22
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225364
[2005] CAT 16
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225358
The 1869 Act gave the Postmaster-General a monopoly of transmitting telegrams. Telegrams were defined as messages transmitted by telegraph. A telegraph was defined to include ‘any apparatus for transmitting messages or other communications by means of electric signals’. When the Act was introduced the only such means of communication functioned by interrupting and re-establishing electric current, thereby causing a series of clicks which conveyed information by morse code. Then Bell and Edison invented the telephone which conveyed the human voice by wire by means of an entirely novel process. It was argued that because this process was unknown when the Act was passed, the Act could not apply to it. The Court rejected this submission. Giving the judgment of the Exchequer Division, Stephen J said: ‘Of course no one supposes that the legislature intended to refer specifically to telephones many years before they were invented, but it is highly probable that they would, and it seems to us clear that they actually did, use language embracing future discoveries as to the use of electricity for the purpose of conveying intelligence. The great object of the Act of 1863 was to give special powers to telegraph companies to enable them to open streets, lay down wires, take land, suspend wires over highways, connect wires, erect posts on the roofs of houses, and do many other things of the same sort. The Act, in short, was intended to confer powers and to impose duties upon companies established for the purpose of communicating information by the action of electricity upon wires, and absurd consequences would follow if the nature and extent of those powers and duties were made dependent upon the means employed for the purpose of giving the information.’
Stephen J
(1880) 6 QBD 244
England and Wales
Applied – Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health CA 18-Jan-2002
A cloned cell, a cell produced by cell nuclear replacement came within the definition of embryo under the Act. The Act required that fertilisation was complete.
Held: The act could be applied in a purposive way. The legislative policy was that . .
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.180042
The applicants sought to quash the Scheme in the 1999 Regulations by judicial review. Prescribers under the NHS are not directly concerned with price, and that led to the need for independent regulatory controls over prices. Those controls allowed modulation of the prices, so that companies could select how the overall required price reduction was apportioned between products. That modulation was challenged.
Held: It was not possible to sever the modulation provisions. There was no discriminatory effect against imports resulting from the Scheme. Appeal dismissed.
The Master Of The Rolls, Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Ward
[2001] EWCA Civ 1896, [2002] UKCLR 305, [2002] Eu LR 197
Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 1999, Health Act 1999 33
England and Wales
Cited – Parke, Davis and Co v Probel, Reese, Beintema-Interpharm and Centrafarm ECJ 29-Feb-1968
ECJ The restrictive nature of article 85(1) is incompatible with any extension of the prohibition for which it provides beyond the three categories of agreement exclusively enumerated therein. The existence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167219
Several companies put in bids for communications licences. The auction terms required some companies to disassociate themselves from each other. The successful companies who met this requirement were required to begin payments immediately, but others were allowed to commence payments on compliance with the preconditions. The claimant sought judicial review of the decisions, as providing state aid. It was held that such fortuitous consequences of a contract could not be described as state aid, and indeed as an auction or trade sale by competitive tender, it was outside the rules against state aid.
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Henry
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.166641
[2018] CAT 16
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 7-Sep-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (8) CAT 26-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 9-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (6) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636196
[2019] CAT 7
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 15-Nov-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (6) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 7-Sep-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (8) CAT 26-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 9-Mar-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636207
[2019] CAT 4
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636202
[2018] CAT 2
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636181
[2018] CAT 18
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636198
[2018] CAT 13
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (8) CAT 26-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 9-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 15-Nov-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (6) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636193
[2019] CAT 2
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636199
[2018] CAT 9
England and Wales
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 9-May-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (8) CAT 26-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 9-Mar-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 7-Sep-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority CAT 15-Nov-2018
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (6) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
See Also – Ping Europe Limited v Competition and Markets Authority (7) CAT 6-Mar-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636189
[2018] CAT 14
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636191
[2018] CAT 11
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636190
[2018] CAT 15
England and Wales
See Also – Achilles Information Limited v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited CAT 30-Nov-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636194
LLU/WLR Charge Control March 2012
[2012] CAT 18
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.464854
Llu/Wlr Charge Control March 2012
[2013] CAT 8
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.473060
[2004] CAT 18
England and Wales
Cited – Rudd v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 1985
The court considered the word ‘used’ in the context of a TV Licensing prosecution.
Held: The word ‘use’ is to be interpreted in its natural and ordinary meaning. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222224
ECJ Directive 92/50/EEC – Public service contracts – Award with no public call for tenders – Award of the contract to a semi-public undertaking – Judicial protection – Directive 89/665/EEC
ECJ The City of Halle had decided to award a contract for the handling and disposal of its waste to RPL, a company with limited liability. Three quarters of RPL’s shares were held by a wholly owned subsidiary of a company itself wholly owned by Halle. Just under one quarter were held by a private company. Leuna challenged the proposed contract on the ground that Halle had failed to comply with the Directives. The question was whether the existence of a substantial private shareholding in the contractor was inconsistent with the control test.
Held: The court observed that in Teckal the distinct entity was wholly owned by the public authorities. On the other hand, participation, even as a minority, of a private undertaking excluded the possibility of the contracting authority exercising a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments. This was incompatible with the Teckal exemption because the element of private capital meant that the control test was not satisfied.
C-26/03, [2005] EUECJ C-26/03, [2005] ECR I-1
Directive 89/665/EEC, Directive 92/50/EEC
European
Cited – Jivraj v Hashwani SC 27-Jul-2011
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 . .
Cited – Brent London Borough Council and Others v Risk Management Partners Ltd SC 9-Feb-2011
The council had put out to tender its insurance requirements. The respondent submitted its bid. The council then withdrew the tender in order to take up membership of a mutual company providing such services created by local authorities in London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221002
[2018] CAT 12
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636192
[2018] CAT 6
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636183
[2018] CAT 19
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636197
[2019] CAT 10
England and Wales
See Also – DSG Retail Limited and Another v Mastercard Incorporated and Others CAT 14-Feb-2019
Roth J explained Henderson L’s observation in Gresport as meaning that: ‘ . . the concept of reasonable diligence is to be applied on the assumption that the claimant is on notice of the need to investigate’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636208
[2019] CAT 3
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636203
[2019] CAT 1
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636200
ECJ Free Movement of Goods – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) – Foodstuffs to which vitamins or mineral salts have been added – National legislation making their marketing subject to there being a nutritional need – Measures having equivalent effect – Justification – Public health – Proportionality)
A Rosas, P
[2004] EUECJ C-41/02, [2004] ECR I-11375
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220003
The Act created a monopoly for the claimant for the delivery of post. It asserted that the defendant was acting in beach of that monopoly, and sought damages.
Held: The Act made no provision for a civil claim for damages for breach of the Act. Since the right was created by statute, and the statute provided a complete code for the right, it was not possible to use any of the exceptions in the Lonhro case to found a right to damages. The legislation granted an exclusive privilege, not an exclusive right. A privilege did not give rise to an entitlement to exclude anyone else from the privilege. It was up to Parliament to do so, not the claimant.
Jacob J
Times 24-Jan-2002, Gazette 21-Feb-2002
British Telecommunications Act 1981 66
England and Wales
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.167436
[2018] EWCA Civ 2527
Consumer Rights Act 2015, Competition Act 1998
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628701
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal.
Held: Since the decision of the tribunal did not involve questions of law, it fell exactly within the Cooke case, and the court should be reluctant to review a tribunal practicing as expert in an area for which it had been given statutory responsibility, and in which the judges would have no experience. An application for leave should identify which law had been infringed, and where it could be found in European law, and the exact nature of the error alleged. The application should also comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction.
Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Buxton
Times 26-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 796
Civil Procedure Rules 52.4, Competition Act 1998 18
England and Wales
Cited – Practice Direction on the Citation of Authorities LCJ 9-Apr-2001
The court laid down rules for restricting the citation of authorities, which rules are to be applied in all courts except criminal courts. The increase in the number of judgments series being available had come to be problematic for all involved, . .
Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 22-May-2001
Judgment on request for interim relief.
In principle, prices are excessive if they ‘are higher than would be expected in a competitive market’ and ‘there is no effective competitive pressure to bring them down to competitive levels, nor is . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 10-Jul-2001
Judgment on application to extend time for service of defence. . .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 8-Aug-2001
Judgment on application to disallow parts of the defence. . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – NAPP Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 6-Feb-2002
Judgment on interest and costs. . .
See Also – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 26-Mar-2002
Judgment regarding reasons for refusing permission to appeal – dismissed with costs. . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jan-2008
The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217202
ECFI Competition – Article 81 EC – Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange cash – Germany – Procedure by default
T-61/02, [2004] EUECJ T-61/02
European
See Also – Commerzbank v Commission ECFI 27-Sep-2006
ECFI Competition – Article 81 EC – Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services – Germany – Evidence of the infringement – Application to set aside judgments by default . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216607
[2019] EWHC 515 (TCC)
England and Wales
See Also – Serco Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence TCC 27-Feb-2019
Defendant’s strike out application in procurement challenge. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.634358
Lindley LJ said: ‘In dealing with estates in land title is everything, and it can be leisurely investigated; in commercial transactions possession is everything, and there is no time to investigate title; and if we were to extend the doctrine of constructive notice to commercial transactions we should be doing infinite mischief and paralyzing the trade of the country.’
Lindley LJ
[1895] 2 QB 539
England and Wales
Cited – Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The parties came together in a limited partnership to develop property. The appeal was against a refusal to grant summary judgment on a claim that one party had been induced to enter the contract by a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.194960
ECJ (Competition) Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme – Compatibility with competition rules – Classification of a sectoral pension fund as an undertaking
C-116/97, [1999] EUECJ C-116/97
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215844
(Competition)
C-117/97, [1999] EUECJ C-117/97
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215845
ECJ Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Practices preventing the publishing and sale of comprehensive weekly television guides.
Joined cases 76, 77 and 91/89 R.
Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for grant – Serious and irreparable damage
(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2))
T Koopmans, P
C-91/89, [1989] EUECJ C-91/89R, [1989] ECR 1141, [1990] FSR 87, [1989] 4 CMLR 749
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215696
The Court was asked as to the enforcement of government approved airline tariffs which were being evaded by travel agents who bought air tickets between two airports both outside Germany with the passenger boarding the plane during its stopover at a German airport. It was also said that their conduct constituted unfair competition because the prices of the airline tickets they sold undercut the approved tariffs applied by their competitors. The Bundesgerichtshof referred questions to the Court raising the compatibility of the agreement on tariffs not only under Article 85 but also under Article 86. It recognised that the tariff agreements at issue in the proceedings might have a serious anti-competitive effect: they may even have the effect of completely eliminating price competition on the routes to which they relate.
Held: The principles established in Asjes continued to apply to domestic air transport and air transport between the EEC and third countries since those sectors were still not covered by implementing regulations made under Article 87. The Court drew a distinction between these flights and intra-Community flights because the Council and Commission had by this time enacted implementing measures for the latter.
R-66/86, [1989] EUECJ R-66/86
European
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215681
[1988] EUECJ R-30/87
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215592
National rules on fuel prices.
R-115/84, [1985] EUECJ R-115/84
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215364
The tribunal de police de Paris sought a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against the executives of airlines and travel agencies, who were charged with infringing the French Civil Aviation Code when selling air tickets by applying tariffs that were different from the approved tariffs. According to the French Code, all airlines had to submit their tariffs to the Government for approval. The Ministry’s decision approving the tariff proposed by an airline rendered that tariff binding on all traders. The tribunal de police asked whether such a system was incompatible with the competition provisions of the Treaty.
Held: The question was understood to ask whether it is contrary to the Member States’ obligations under the Treaty to enforce approved tariffs if those tariffs are the result of an agreement, a decision or a concerted practice between the airlines contrary to Article 85. The Court referred to international agreements concerning civil aviation and the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation that re-affirms the principle of each State’s sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. The Court noted that, based on that principle of sovereignty, a network of bilateral agreements has been set up whereby States have authorised the establishment of one or more air routes between their respective territories. Those bilateral agreements follow a standard model which provides, amongst other things, that the tariffs for air services will be fixed by the companies that are authorized to operate the routes envisaged by each agreement. Those tariffs, which are often negotiated under the auspices of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), are then subject to the approval of the authorities of the signatory States. However, the French Government accepted that the bilateral agreements to which they were a signatory did not require them to ignore EU competition rules when approving tariffs.
In light of the structure created by Articles 88 and 89, the fact that an agreement may fall within the ambit of Article 85 does not, the Court held, suffice for it to be immediately prohibited by Article 85(1) and so automatically void under Article 85(2). Such a conclusion would be contrary to the general principle of legal certainty which is a rule of law that must be upheld in the application of the Treaty. It would have the effect of prohibiting and rendering automatically void certain agreements, even before it is possible to ascertain whether Article 85 as a whole is applicable to those agreements. Thus, the Court held, until the entry into force of implementing measures under Article 87, agreements are prohibited under Article 85(1) and are automatically void under Article 85(2) only in so far as they have been held by the authorities of the Member States, pursuant to Article 88, to fall under Article 85(1) and not to qualify for exemption from the prohibition under Article 85(3)
R-213/84, [1986] EUECJ R-213/84, [1986] ECR 1425
European
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215431
ECJ 1. Within the framework of the task given it by article 177 of the EEC Treaty, the court of justice has no jurisdiction to decide the application of the treaty to a given case but the need to reach a useful interpretation of community law enables it to extract from the facts of the main dispute the details necessary for the understanding of the questions submitted and the formulation of an appropriate reply.
2. An administrative letter despatched without publication as laid down in regulation no 17 informing the undertaking concerned of the commission ‘ s opinion that there is no need for it to take action in respect of the agreements in question and that the file on the case may therefore be closed constitutes neither a decision granting negative clearance nor a decision applying article 85 (3) of the eec treaty within the meaning of articles 2 and 6 of regulation no 17.
Such a letter does not have the result of preventing national courts before which the agreements in question are alleged to be incompatible with article 85 of the treaty from reaching a different finding as regards the agreements in question on the basis of the information available to them. Whilst it does not bind the national courts, the opinion transmitted in such a letter nevertheless constitutes a factor which the national courts may take into account in examining whether the agreements or conduct in question are in accordance with the provisions of article 85.
3. Community law and national law on competition consider restrictive practices from different points of view. Whereas articles 85 and 86 of the eec treaty regard them in the light of the obstacles which may result for trade between member states, national law proceeds on the basis of the considerations peculiar to it and considers restrictive practices only in that context. It follows that national authorities may also take action in regard to situations which are capable of forming the subject-matter of a decision by the commission.
However, parallel application of national competition law can only be permitted in so far as it does not prejudice the uniform application, throughout the common market, of the community rules on cartels or the full effects of the measures adopted in implementation of those rules.
4. The fact that a practice has been held by the commission not to fall within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Article 85 (1) and (2) of the EEC Treaty, the scope of which is limited to agreements capable of affecting trade between member states, in no way prevents that practice from being considered by the national authorities from the point of view of the restrictive effects which it may produce nationally.
Accordingly, community law does not prevent the application of national provisions prohibiting a refusal to sell even where the agreements relied upon for the purpose of justifying that refusal have formed the subject-matter of a decision by the commission to close the file on the case.
R-253/78, [1980] EUECJ R-253/78
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214934
ECJ 1. Paragraph I of the protocol on German internal trade and connected problems, annexed to the EEC Treaty, is intended to relieve the federal republic of Germany of the obligation to apply the rules of community law to german internal trade. It accords a special status to the german democratic republic as territory which does not form part of the community but which is not a non-member country vis-a-vis the federal republic of Germany.
For a transaction to form part of german internal trade within the meaning of the protocol, it is necessary, and at the same time sufficient, that the goods are put into free circulation in the german democratic republic without having been in free circulation in a third country after having left the territory of the federal republic of Germany.
2. The concept of export within the context of the community provisions concerning export refunds for agricultural products subject to the common organization of the markets must be interpreted as meaning that it does not refer to trade forming part of german internal trade within the meaning of the protocol on german internal trade.
R-23/79, [1979] EUECJ R-23/79
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214851
R-63/75, [1976] EUECJ R-63/75
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214469
It is possible that an agreement between undertakings, although it does not relate either to imports or to exports between member states within the meaning of article 4(2)(1) of regulation no 17, may affect trade between member states within the meaning of article 85(1) of the eec treaty.
Exclusive supply agreements, the execution of which does not require the goods in question to cross national frontiers, do not relate either to imports or to exports between member states within the meaning of article 4(2)(1) of regulation no 17.
Article 88 of the EEC treaty refers to national rules on jurisdiction and procedure, with the result that the phrase ‘authorities in member states’ which appears both in this provision and in article 9(3) of regulation no 17 includes national courts.
The acknowledged power of the authorities in member states to apply article 85(1) of the eec treaty implies the power to apply paragraph (2) of that article.
An agreement between undertakings which is exempt from notification and which has not been notified is fully effective for so long as it has not been found to be void.
R-43/69, [1970] EUECJ R-43/69
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214095
Law Relating To Undertakings – Directive 93/37/EEC – Public works contracts – Award of contracts – Abnormally low tenders – Detailed rules for explanation and rejection applied in a Member State – Obligations of the awarding authority under Community law
[2001] ECR I-9233, C-286/99, [2001] EUECJ C-286/99, [2004] 1 CMLR 2
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214012
ECSC Treaty – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Alloy surcharge – Price fixing – Rights of the defence – Duration of the infringement – Fine – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Principle of equal treatment
T-47/98, [2001] EUECJ T-47/98, [2002] 4 CMLR 15, [2001] ECR II-3757
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214013