(Competition) – Decision granting exemption – Television rights – Eurovision system – Article 81(1) and (3) EC – Manifest error of assessment
[2002] EUECJ T-216/00
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213933
(Competition)
[2003] EUECJ C-36/01
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213878
Competition
C-37/01, [2003] EUECJ C-37/01
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213879
(Competition)
[2003] EUECJ C-35/01
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213877
(Competition) – Decision granting exemption – Television rights – Eurovision system – Article 81(1) and (3) EC – Manifest error of assessment
[2002] EUECJ T-299/00
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213934
(Competition) – Decision granting exemption – Television rights – Eurovision system – Article 81(1) and (3) EC – Manifest error of assessment
[2002] EUECJ T-300/00
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213935
C-38/01, [2003] EUECJ C-38/01
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213880
1. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court exclusively dependent on the existence of a request
(EEC Treaty, article 177)
2. Procedure – preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EEC treaty – request by a national court – form not laid down in the treaty
(EEC treaty, article 177)
3. Procedure – preliminary ruling on interpretation of articles 85 et seq. Of the EEC treaty – justified request
(EEC treaty, article 177)
4. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court – limits
(EEC treaty, article 177)
5. Competition – article 85 of the EEC treaty – immediately applicable
6. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – no automatic nullity – principle of legal certainty
7. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – legal consequences of this provision before the entry into force of the implementing regulation
8. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – implementing regulation – entry into force – legal consequences
9. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – effect as regards nullity of agreements and decisions not notified
R-13/61, [1962] EUECJ R-13/61, [1962] ECR 47
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.213756
The applicant was party to a consent order, but appealed part of it which he now asserted was unlawful.
Held: It is settled law that a consent order could be varied where the whole order was vitiated because some or all of it was unlawful. Nevertheless in this case the term was not unenforceable, and the order was not to be varied.
Justice Blackburn
Times 17-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002
England and Wales
Cited – Huddersfield Banking Co Ltd v Henry Lister and Son Ltd CA 1895
A consent order, which had been completed and acted upon, but without affecting interests of third parties, was set aside by the Court upon the ground of common mistake of fact.
Kay LJ said: ‘A compromise takes place when there is a question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.167400
[2018] CAT 17
England and Wales
See Also – Achilles Information Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd CAT 19-Oct-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.636195
[2018] CAT 3
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.636185
A proposed takeover had been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the 1973 Act. A majority of the Commission recommended against the takeover. The Deputy (acting instead of the Secretary who had an interest) overruled the Commission. AS challenged that decision, and sought to refer to statements made by the Secretary of State and his Deputy and which were reported in Hansard.
Held: The application to quash the decision failed. The discretion given to ministers was unfettered. He was entitled to listen all views within the Commission and to make his own assessment. It had not been shown that irrelevant factors had been taken into account. Reliance could not be placed on Hansard with respect to a decision taken outside Parliament.
[1983] 2 All ER 233
England and Wales
Applied – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Applied – Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith QBD 1971
The plaintiff church sued the defendant, a Member of Parliament, for remarks made by the defendant in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and the plaintiff replied with a plea of malice, relying on statements made in Parliament. The . .
Overruled – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.182422
Defendant’s strike out application in procurement challenge.
Fraser J
[2019] EWHC 549 (TCC)
England and Wales
See Also – Serco Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence TCC 28-Feb-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.634359
[2018] EWHC 1994 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.628917
The company had, under a private Act of Parliament, constructed a jetty and a roadway. They objected to the provision of similar services by the respondents
Held: Their appeal failed. An injunction against competition was refused. The Act did not confer on the ferry company an exclusive right of ferry. The respondents had in fact for many years previously carried passengers over a relate route.
After quoting the relevant section Lord Macmillan, with whom the other members of the House concurred, said: ‘Now this section does not purport to grant a franchise of ferry. It merely empowers the company to establish a ferry service. It imposes no obligation on the company whatever; it does not require the company to provide any service. The terms of the section are permissive not obligatory, enabling not mandatory. If the company chose not to provide a ferry service no member of the public could compel it to do so. In short the position of the company is comparable to that of a railway company which has obtained power to construct and work a new line but is under no obligation to the public either to construct it or to work it when constructed’
Lord Macmillan
[1930] AC 549, 99 LJ Ch 337, 143 LT 313, 46 TLR 439, 28 LGR 351
England and Wales
Appeal from – Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons CA 1929
In construing a private statute, it should be viewed so as not to prevent persons carryong out otherwise lawful acts unless expressly so stated.
Scrutton LJ said that clear and unequivocal words were necessary to deprive persons of the power . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.272212
Appeal against case management directions given by Peter Smith J.
Elias, Gloster LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix
[2015] EWCA Civ 1024, [2015] WLR(D) 411, [2016] Bus LR 145
England and Wales
Cited – Quinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
See Also – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Another v British Airways Plc ChD 8-Apr-2009
The claim was for damages after alleged price fixing by the defendants. The claimants sought to recover for themselves and as representatives of others who had similarly suffered. The defendants sought that the representative element of the claim be . .
See Also – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Another v British Airways Plc CA 18-Nov-2010
. .
See Also – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc and (3513) ChD 28-Oct-2014
A hearing of an Application whereby the Claimants requested the Court to review (with such judicial assistance as might be necessary) the appropriateness / lawfulness of the redactions made by the Defendant airline (‘BA’) and other airlines to the . .
Appeal from – Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways ChD 22-Jul-2015
The judge was hearing a very substantial action between the parties. He had recently travelled to Italy and came back on one of the defendant’s aircraft. The defendant lost the luggage of all passengers and had failed to deal adequately or at all . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Health and Another v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others SC 2-Jul-2021
Economic tort of causing loss by unlawful means
The Court was asked whether the ‘dealing requirement’ is a constituent part of the tort of causing loss by unlawful means; whether a necessary element of the unlawful means tort is that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s . .
See Also – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Another v British Airways Plc CA 18-Nov-2010
. .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.553437
ECJ A beer supply agreement is prohibited by Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if two cumulative conditions are met. The first is that, having regard to the economic and legal context of the agreement at issue, it is difficult for competitors who could enter the market or increase their market share to gain access to the national market for the distribution of beer in premises for the sale and consumption of drinks. The fact that, in that market, the agreement in issue is one of a number of similar agreements having a cumulative effect on competition constitutes only one factor amongst others in assessing whether access to that market is indeed difficult. The second condition is that the agreement in question must make a significant contribution to the sealing-off effect brought about by the totality of those agreements in their economic and legal context. The extent of the contribution made by the individual agreement depends on the position of the contracting parties in the relevant market and on the duration of the agreement.
A beer supply agreement which contains an access clause, that is to say one which permits the reseller to buy beer from other Member States, is not such as to affect trade between States provided that the permission corresponds to a real possibility for a national or foreign supplier to supply the reseller with beers from other Member States. That possibility is to be assessed in the light of the wording of the clause, regard also being had to the specific effect of all the contractual clauses in their economic and legal context.
A beer supply agreement does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1984/83 for block exemption for this type of agreement if the drinks covered by the exclusive purchasing terms are not listed in the text of the agreement itself but are stated to be those set out in the price list of the brewery or its subsidiaries, as amended from time to time.
Where a beer supply agreement relating to premises used for the sale and consumption of drinks leased or made available to the reseller by the supplier and entailing a purchasing obligation for drinks other than beer cannot enjoy the block exemption provided for in Regulation No 1984/83 because that agreement does not meet the requirement laid down in Article 8(2)(b) of that regulation that the reseller should have the right in certain cases to obtain drinks from other suppliers, that does not necessarily mean that the whole of the contract is void under Article 85(2) of the Treaty, if only because such an agreement may qualify for exemption under another head. If anything is void, it is only those aspects of the agreement prohibited by Article 85(1). The agreement as a whole is void only if those parts do not appear to be severable from the agreement itself.
Whilst both Articles 85(1) and 86 of the Treaty and the provisions of the exemption regulations produce direct effect in relations between individuals and create rights directly in respect of the individuals concerned which the national courts must safeguard, that does not mean that national courts may extend the sphere of application of the block exemption for agreements provided for in Regulation No 1984/83 to a beer supply agreement not explicitly complying with the conditions for exemption contained in that regulation; nor may they declare Article 85(1) of the Treaty inapplicable to such an agreement under Article 85(3). A national court may, however, declare the agreement void under Article 85(2) if it is certain that the agreement could not be the subject of an exemption under Article 85(3). Otherwise, it may in any event, on the one hand, request a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty and, on the other, contact the Commission, which, by virtue of its duty of sincere cooperation with the judicial authorities of the Member States responsible for ensuring that Community law is applied and respected in the national legal system, will supply the national court with such economic and legal information as is necessary in order to resolve the litigation before the national court and which it is in a position to provide.
C-234/89, [1991] ECR I-935, [1991] EUECJ C-234/89
European
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Cited – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
Cited – H J Banks and Co Ltd v British Coal Corporation ECJ 13-Apr-1994
The European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ECSC treaty disputes. The duty of sincere cooperation imposed the obligation on the national court to mitigate as far as possible in the interests of the Community the risk of a conflicting . .
Cited – Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yotuuli Ky and Others ECJ 7-Dec-2000
The court considered a petrol station agreement under which the operator of the station agreed to take fuel from a single supplier. The agreement was for 10 years and thereafter the operator could terminate the agreement by giving a year’s notice. . .
Cited – Parks v Esso Petroleum Company Limited CA 23-Jul-1999
The claimant sought to add a claim under the regulations for compensation after termination of his agency for the defendants. The lower court had rejected his claim saying that the petrol products he sold were at a price fixed by Esso, and that . .
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 . .
Cited – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.160313
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: Intrepreneur’s appeal was allowed. The Commission’s decision was not binding. Lord Bingham: ‘Community law prohibits the making by national courts of decisions which contradict decisions of Community institutions on the same subject matter between the same parties, and strongly discourages the making by national courts of decisions which may be inconsistent with decisions which may yet be made by Community institutions on the same subject matter between the same parties. But it does not . . go the length of requiring national courts to accept the factual basis of a decision reached by a Community institution when considering an issue arising between different parties in respect of a different subject matter. ‘
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2006] UKHL 38, Times 20-Jul-2006, [2006] 3 WLR 148, [2006] NPC 85, [2006] 4 All ER 465, [2006] ICR 1344, [2006] 30 EGCS 103, [2006] 30 EG 103, [2007] 1 AC 333
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 16
England and Wales
See Also – Courage Limited v Crehan ChD 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .
Cited – Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV ECJ 1-Jun-1999
ECJ Competition – Application by an arbitration tribunal, of its own motion, of Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) – Power of national courts to annul arbitration awards.
‘Article [81] of the Treaty constitutes a . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan; The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd v Byrne; Same v Langton; Greenalls Management Ltd v Smith; Walker Cain Ltd v McCaughey CA 14-Jun-1999
There is not to be read into a beer tie term any implied provision that the beer to be supplied under the term was to be supplied at any kind of advantageous price. A tenant seeking damages for failure to supply under such a term was not entitled to . .
At ECJ – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan CA 12-Nov-2001
. .
At First Instance – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Cpc), Brewman Group Limited ChD 26-Jun-2003
The landlord had signed agreements tieing him to sales of beers. After falling into debt, he challnged the prices he had been obliged to pay as contravening the Treaty. The European Court had held that there was a possible claim under the Treaty. . .
Appeal from – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Cited – Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd ECJ 14-Dec-2000
Masterfoods Ltd, a subsidiary of Mars Inc, brought proceedings in Ireland against HB Ice Cream Ltd, a subsidiary of Unilever, for a declaration that its agreements to provide retailers with freezer cabinets on terms that they stocked only HB ice . .
Cited – Iberian (Uk) Ltd v BPB Industries Plc and Another ChD 15-May-1996
UK courts should avoid creating procedures inconsistent with European decisions: ‘The necessity of avoiding conflicting decisions between the Commission and national courts is a theme which runs through a number of European and English domestic . .
Cited – H J Banks and Co Ltd v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jun-2002
. .
Cited – Coal Authority v H J Banks and Company Ltd; H J Banks and Company Ltd v The Coal Authority and Anoher ComC 20-Dec-1996
ComC Summary judgment under RSC Order 14 – claim for royalties – previous decision of the European Commission – claim for damages for breach of article 4 European Coal and Steel Treaty. The defence to the Coal . .
Cited – William Stirling The Younger v Maitland And Boyd 1864
Cockburn CJ stated: ‘I look on the law to be that, if a party enters into an agreement which can only take effect by the continuance of a certain existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he shall do nothing of . .
Cited – Mackay v Dick and Stevenson HL 1881
One party contracted to supply to the other ‘a steam navvy of novel construction’ on condition that it achieved a stipulated rate of excavation in stipulated circumstances. The purchaser did not make available the ‘opened up face’ that was necessary . .
Cited – Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft Mbh v Metro-Sb-Grossmarkte Gmbh and Co Kg ECJ 8-Jun-1971
ECJ Under article 177 of the court, when giving a preliminary ruling, is entitled only to pronounce on the interpretation of the treaty and of acts of the institutions of the community or on their validity but . .
Cited – Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Bank Ltd v Visa International Service Association 2-May-2001
. .
Cited – Nv L’Oreal And Sa L’Oreal v Pvba De Nieuwe Amck ECJ 11-Dec-1980
ECJ The agreements laying down a selective distribution system based on criteria for admission which go beyond a mere objective selection of a qualitative nature exhibit features making them incompatible with . .
Cited – European Food and Others v Commission ECFI 18-Jun-2019
State aid – Award made by an arbitral tribunal established under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) – Payment of compensation granted to certain economic operators – Decision declaring the aid . .
Cited – Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG ECJ 28-Feb-1991
ECJ A beer supply agreement is prohibited by Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if two cumulative conditions are met. The first is that, having regard to the economic and legal context of the agreement at issue, it . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.243335
ECJ Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin – Bilateral convention between a Member State and a non-member country protecting indications of geographical source from that non-member country – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 – Article 307 EC – Succession of States in respect of treaties.
C-216/01, [2003] EUECJ C-216/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:618, [2003] ECR I-13617, [2005] 1 CMLR 56
European
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.188352
[2018] EWHC 2616 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.625510
Expedited application for permission to appeal. Professional snooker players had sought an injunction to prevent their professional association bringing in a change of rules without the claimants having adequate opportunity to take advice.
Held: The refusal had been a matter of the exercise of a judicial discretion. The judge had had a difficult case, but had given proper reasons for his decision, and the appeal failed.
Henry, Robert Walker LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1127
England and Wales
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201248
Masterfoods Ltd, a subsidiary of Mars Inc, brought proceedings in Ireland against HB Ice Cream Ltd, a subsidiary of Unilever, for a declaration that its agreements to provide retailers with freezer cabinets on terms that they stocked only HB ice cream contravened articles 81 and 82. On 28 May 1992 the High Court dismissed the action and, on HB’s counterclaim, granted an injunction to restrain Masterfoods from inducing retailers to break their agreements by stocking Masterfoods ice cream. Masterfoods complained to the Commission, who in due course appeared to gicve conflicting opinions. The Supreme Court of Ireland referred questions as to what the duty of sincere co-operation required of it in the circumstances.
Held: Domestic courts must therefore accept a Commission decision that a prohibited agreement or practice exists. Despite the fact that the Irish proceedings were concerned with HB’s distribution arrangements prior to 1992 whereas the Commission’s decision was concerned with the altered distribution arrangements, the duty of sincere co-operation required the Supreme Court to stay its own proceedings pending final judgment in the action for annulment (unless it considered a reference on the validity of the Commission decision was warranted). When a national court has to make decision on an agreement whose compatibility with the EC Treaty had already been considered by the Commission, and there is a conflict between a decision of its own courts, and that decision of the Commission of the European Communities, it had to follow the decision of the Commission.
Times 02-Feb-2001, C-344/98, [2001] 4 CMLR 14, [2000] ECR 1-11369, [2000] EUECJ C-344/98
European
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Cited – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Sa (France) and others CA 14-Oct-2008
The defendant had been involved in price fixing arrangements, and the claimant sought damages for breach of its proprietary rights. The claimant appealed refusal of an award an account of profits for what was akin to a breach of statutory duty.
Cited – Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.162491
The Commission suspected the applicant of anti-competitive practices, and sought permission and support in an enforced entry and seizure of the applicant’s premises. The French court sought guidance as to the considerations involved.
Held: The national court had a duty under European law to investigate the request to the extent of asking whether the proposed steps were arbitrary or disproportionate to the investigation proposed, but it could not investigate the justification of the measures sought beyond those issues.
Times 24-Oct-2002, C-94/00, [2002] EUECJ C-94/00
European
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.177483
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Sedley
[2005] EWCA Civ 1514
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.235831
The directors of the company had organised a scheme for imports from China which was thought to be an unlawful abuse of the import licensing scheme. When presneted with an application by the Secretary of State for the winding up of the company, the company gave undertakings as to their future conduct. They then sought a declaration that certain operations would not be in breach of those undertakings, and appealed a refusal of a declaration, and of the undertakings, saying they had been given under effective compulsion.
Held: Generally a party giving an undertaking would not later be heard to speak against it, but in this case it was effectively an appeal against the judge’s decision not to wind the company up only if undertakings were given. This was a case in which the company could be allowed to appeal against its own undertakings. An application for declaratory relief by the company rather than winding up at the request of the Seceretary might have been a better approach in the first place. Had the company sought to establish the lawfulness or otherwise of their scheme they might not have ended up in this postion. The judge’s decision was correct.
Lord Justice Mummery The Honourable Mr Justice Collins Lord Justice Scott Baker
[2004] EWCA Civ 1066, Times 21-Sep-2004
England and Wales
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bell Davies Trading Ltd and KTA Limited ChD 16-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – In the Matter of the Supporting Link; In the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 ChD 19-Mar-2004
The Secretary of State sought the winding up of the company. Directors offered undertakings as to their future behaviour.
Held: The Court should be slow to accept such undertakings unless the Secretary consented. The company was solvent, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199593
(New Zealand) The company had been found guilty under the Act of abusing its dominant position. The appeal was restricted to whether the dominant position was being used in the way suggested. Would the company have introduced its price cuts if it had not had the dominant position it did have.
Held: ‘while it is legitimate to infer ‘purpose’ from use of a dominant position producing an anti-competitive effect, it may be dangerous to argue the converse that because the anti-competitive purpose was present, therefore there was use of a dominant position.’ The court appeared to have wrongly inferred an abuse of the dominant position. A dominant firm uses its position of dominance when it engages in price-cutting with a view to recouping its losses without loss of market share by raising prices without fear of reprisals afterwards. Price-cutting is not a badge of the use of dominance, and the court must give appropriate weight to the counterfactual test. Appeal allowed (by a majority)
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2004] UKPC 37
Cited – Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd v Clear Communications Ltd 1995
(New Zealand) A trader is entitled, before he enters upon a line of conduct which is designed to affect his competitors, to know with some certainty whether or not what he proposes to do is lawful. The meaning and effect of section 36 of the 1986 . .
Cited – Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd 1989
(Australia) The operation of section 46 of the 1974 Act, is predicated on the assumption that competition is a means to the end of protecting the interests of consumers: ‘Competition by its very nature is deliberate and ruthless. Competitors jockey . .
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 – Tetra Pak v Commission ECJ 14-Nov-1996
When defining the relevant market for the purpose of applying Article 86 of the Treaty, the competitive conditions and the structure of supply and demand on the market are relevant criteria for determining whether certain products are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198903
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Jacob
[2004] EWCA Civ 757
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198309
Nourse LJ said of the Condon Case: ‘The principle of cases such as those is that the court will direct a trustee in bankruptcy not to insist on his full legal rights if it would be unacceptable for him to do so. The principle is subject to qualifications, of which the most important is that the court will only take that course in a case where it would be dishonest or shabby or the like for the trustee to insist on his full legal rights.’
Lawton LJ said: ‘Various words have been used in the cases to indicate the kind of conduct to which the principle of Ex p James, Re Condon (1874) LR 9 Ch App 609 may apply, such as ‘a point of moral justice’, ‘dishonest’, ‘dishonourable’, ‘unworthy’, ‘unfair’ and ‘shabby’. Those words are not words of art at all. They are words of ordinary English usage and the concept behind them is, as I understand the cases, that an officer of the court, such as a trustee in bankruptcy or a liquidator, should not behave in a way which a reasonable member of the public, knowing all the facts, would regard as either dishonest, unfair or dishonourable.’
Lawton LJ, Nourse LJ
[1987] BCLC 257
England and Wales
Cited – In re Condon, Ex parte James 1874
The Trustee in bankruptcy has relevant duties as the Trustee as an officer of the Court. Such a Trustee would not engage in conduct which could be seen to involve an unfair use of that position, and ‘where it would be unfair’ for a trustee in . .
Cited – Flightline Ltd v Edwards and Another ChD 2-Aug-2002
Money had been paid into an account in the joint names of the parties’ solicitors in order to purchase the release of the applicants from an asset freezing order. The respondent company was in liquidation. It was argued that the payment of funds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.182274
As to a party, a court will not ‘be astute to say that he cannot succeed in doing that which he is straining every nerve to do’.
Lindley LJ
(1889) 6 RPC 531 CA
England and Wales
Cited – Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd PC 13-Oct-1980
(New South Wales) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.182307
Europa For an agreement between undertakings or a concerted practice to be capable of affecting trade between Member States, it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability and on the basis of objective factors of law or fact that it may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States, such as might prejudice the realisation of the aim of a single market between the Member States. Thus, the effect on intra-Community trade is normally the result of a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily decisive.
The fact that a cartel relates only to the marketing of products in a single Member State is not sufficient to exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected. Since the market concerned is susceptible to imports, the members of a national price cartel can retain their market share only if they defend themselves against foreign competition.
In the case of an annulment action against a Commission decision imposing a fine for a breach of the competition rules, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to examine how in each particular case the Commission appraised the gravity of unlawful conduct. In an appeal, the purpose of review by the Court of Justice is, first, to examine to what extent the Court of First Instance took into consideration, in a legally correct manner, all the essential factors to assess the gravity of particular conduct in the light of Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and Article 15 of Regulation No 17 and, second, to consider whether the Court of First Instance responded to a sufficient legal standard to all the arguments raised by the appellant with a view to having the fine cancelled or reduced.
It is not for the Court of Justice, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the Court of First Instance exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of Community law
ECJ Appeal – Competition – Sugar market – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Agreement – Effect on trade between Member States – Fine – Proportionality.
C-359/01, [2004] EUECJ C-359/01P
European
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196654
Complaint – Request to Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Action for failure to act – Inadmissibility.
T-117/96, [1997] EUECJ T-117/96
European
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.173246
ECJ Competition – Undertakings – Sickness funds – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC – Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products
C-264/01, [2004] EUECJ C-264/01
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194868
Trial of a Part 8 claim for specific performance.
Rothe J
[2013] EWHC 3080 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.516552
Europa Appeals – Competition – Parallel imports – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Meaning of agreement between undertakings – Proof of the existence of an agreement – Market in pharmaceutical products.
C-2/01, [2004] EUECJ C-2/01P
European
Appeal from – Bayer AG v Commission (Rec 2000,p II-3383) ECFI 26-Oct-2000
The Commission had found that Bayer’s policy of restricting parallel imports of its pharmaceutical drug, ADALAT, constituted part of its dealership agreements, and had annuled them.
Held: Although Bayer clearly intended to restrict parallel . .
See Also – Bundesverband Der Arzneimittel-Importeure v Bayer And Commission ECJ 6-Jan-2004
EU (Competition) Appeals – Competition – Parallel imports – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Meaning of agreement between undertakings – Proof of the existence of an agreement – Market in . .
Cited – Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution ChD 23-Apr-2010
The defendant had developed a draft standard for automotive body repairs. It included a requirement that any replacement parts must be either the manufacturer’s own or certified under a recognised conformity certification scheme. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192229
ECFI Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Competence of the Commission – Discrimination between airlines – Relevant product and geographic market – Nexus between the product markets allegedly affected – Legal basis of the contested decision – Existence of a dominant position – Abuse of the dominant position – Proportionality of the amount of the fine.
T-219/99, [2003] EUECJ T-219/99
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192218
ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 – Investigations carried out at company premises other than those of the company to which the investigation decision is addressed – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of State authorities – Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty – Whether infringing conduct may be imputed – Fines – Application of the guidelines on calculating fines.
T-65/99, [2003] EUECJ T-65/99
European
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192215
Lord Clarke
[2003] ScotCS 284
Scotland
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190915
Lord Clarke
[2003] ScotCS 118
Scotland
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190919
Lord Drummond Young
[2003] ScotCS 271
Scotland
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190913
Lord Eassie
[2003] ScotCS 276
Scotland
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190912
Order – Application for interim measures – Competition.
T-46/03, [2003] EUECJ T-46/03
European
Order – Leali v Commission ECFI 25-Oct-2007
ECJ Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Producers of reinforcing bars – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS – Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty – Lack of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188360
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison
[2003] EWHC 2403 (COMM)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187285
ECFI State aid – Compensatory levy – Method of financing aid – Community aid scheme for cotton – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Acts which may be challenged – Commission’s refusal to continue infringement proceedings – Principle of independent legal remedies.
T-148/00, [2003] EUECJ T-148/00
European
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187146
(Opinion)
Leger AG
C-182/03, [2006] EUECJ C-182/03, [2006] ECR I-5479, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416
European
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186333
[2020] EWHC 3399 (Ch)
England and Wales
Main judgment – Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd and Others v Visa Europe Ltd and Others (3464) ChD 16-Dec-2020
Post judgment issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.656892
The claimants acted as franchisees of the defendants, having agreed commission arrangements for the introduction of personal injury claimants. Following new rules, the sharing of such commissions became unlawful. The parties had failed to renegotiate a fee arrangement. The defendants appealed saying that the claimants had continuing duties to the lay clients.
Held: The duty of client care continued during the life of the claims. The fee payable was a single fee for that entire service. The defendants would accordingly be able to deduct from outstanding commissions the sums paid out fulfilling the obligations undertaken by the claimants.
Lord Justice Brooke Mr Justice Holman Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
[2003] EWCA Civ 1108, Gazette 02-Oct-2003
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184871
[2003] EWCA Civ 607
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181928
The time bar provision, now found in cl. 28(B) of BIFA, satisfied the requirements of reasonableness under UCTA.
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Hart
[2003] EWCA Civ 570, [2003] 1All ER (Comm) 819, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
England and Wales
Cited – Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181392
(Judgment) Competition – Admissibility.
T-114/02, [2003] EUECJ T-114/02
European
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180837
The respondent sought to transpose the Directive into UK law. The Applicant objected saying that the Directive was invalid.
Held: The Directive had been made under Article 95 EC, concerning the internal market. Insofar as the Directive regulated the composition of tobacco products, and their packaging and labelling as Low Tar etc, it was valid. Where however the Directive sought to have effect on sales outside the Community, it was not properly based, and was invalid.
Where EU legislative or administrative institutions exercise a discretion involving political, economic or social choices, especially where a complex assessment is required, the court will usually intervene only if it considers that the measure is manifestly inappropriate: ‘As a preliminary point, it ought to be borne in mind that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures implemented through Community provisions should be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it . .
With regard to judicial review of the conditions referred to in the previous paragraph, the Community legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in an area such as that involved in the present case, which entails political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.’
G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P
Times 13-Dec-2002, C-491/01, [2002] EUECJ C-491/01, ECLI:EU:C:2002:741, [2002] ECR I-11453
European
Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
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: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178735
Infringement of patents.
Held: With regard in particular to competition law claims (or defences), where the area of law is in the course of development the court should be cautious ‘to assume that it is beyond argument with real prospect of success that the existing case law will not be extended or modified’ so as to encompass the basis of argument advanced.
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Tuckey
[2002] EWCA Civ 1905, [2002] All ER (D) 346, [2003] FSR 33
England and Wales
Appeal from – Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc and others ChD 14-Jun-2002
The claimant sought damages for patent infringement. The respondent asserted that the refusal to licence the patent amounted to an abuse of its dominant position. Complaint had also been brought in the US.
Held: The licence offered by Intel . .
Cited – Adidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Cited – Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution ChD 23-Apr-2010
The defendant had developed a draft standard for automotive body repairs. It included a requirement that any replacement parts must be either the manufacturer’s own or certified under a recognised conformity certification scheme. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178544
ECJ Medicinal products for human use – Community arbitration procedures – Withdrawal of marketing authorisations – Competence – Criteria for withdrawal – Anorectics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephedrine, phentermine – Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC.
T-74/00, [2002] EUECJ T-74/00, [2002] ECR 11-495
European
See Also – Artegodan v Commission ECFI 28-Jun-2000
. .
See Also – Commission v Artegodan and others ECJ 24-Jul-2003
. .
See Also – Artegodan v Commission ECFI 5-Sep-2001
. .
See Also – Commission v Artegodan and others (Order) ECJ 8-May-2003
. .
Cited – British American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 5-Nov-2004
The claimants challenged the validity of regulations restricting cigarette advertisements, saying that greater exceptions should have been allowed, and that the regulations infringed their commercial right of free speech.
Held: The Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178574
Tenants in a shopping precinct sought to enforce restrictive covenants directly against other tenants.
Held: The leases were in the same form, and covenants had been imposed to restrict the uses to avoid conflict. The scheme had the characteristics required of a letting scheme. It was not necessary to look beyond the leases themselves. The tenants were obliged to carry on particular trades, and were protected against competition from others wanting to pursue the same trade. There was no provision to allow the local authority landlord to vary these provisions, and together these established a scheme directly enforceable between the tenants. Restrictions on trade between more than two parties required notification to the competition authorities. The issue of whether mutual enforceability of restrictive covenants within shopping parades required registration remained to be addressed.
Simon Brown, Buxton, Carnwath LJJ
Times 05-Dec-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1645
Law of Property Act 1925 84(12), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, Competition Act 1998 2(4) Sch 13
England and Wales
Cited – St Marylebone Property Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd 1988
Complaints were made by tenants in a block as to the behaviour of other tenants. A covenant in a lease granted in the early 1950s, restricted the user of premises to that of ‘grocers provisions wine spirit and beer merchants’. The premises had been . .
Cited – Re Ravenseft Properties Ltd’s Application 1978
A restriction in terms of the 1976 Act was not accepted merely by the agreement with the landlord. The tenant, in taking the lease, did not restrict a pre-existing freedom to trade on the demised premises, but rather obtained a new, but limited, . .
See also – Williams, Williams v Kiley (Trading As CK Supermarkets) CA 15-Jun-2004
Enforcement of user covenants . .
See Also – Williams, Williams v Kiley (Trading As CK Supermarkets) CA 15-Jun-2004
Enforcement of user covenants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178346
Competition – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Statement of reasons.
T-251/00, [2002] EUECJ T-251/00
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178315
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) – Rights attaching to the ‘golden share held by the French Republic in Societe Nationale Elf-Aquitaine.
[2002] EUECJ C-483/99
European
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 13-May-2003
Complaint was made by the Commission that the ‘golden share’ retained by the respondent government in British Airports Authority was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of capital under the Treaty. The share could only be owned by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173964
A pub lessee applied to annul the Commission’s decision to grant individual exemption to Bass.
Held: The Bass leases did not fall within the Block Exemption because the exclusive purchasing obligation was by type, not by brand. However such a clause constituted a more effective way of implementing the exclusive purchasing arrangements for beer in the United Kingdom and made it possible to preserve access to the market better than the tie by brand. The principal ground for excluding beer supply agreements containing a specification of the purchasing obligation by type of beer from benefiting from the Block Exemption thus required, in the present case, recourse to that clause. ‘It follows that the Bass standard leases fail to comply with the conditions of [the Block Exemption] solely because of a purely technical matter which does not, however, prevent those agreements from complying with the spirit of that regulation. In those circumstances the Commission was right to refer, in the context of the examination of the possibility of granting an individual exemption, to the framework of analysis provided by the regulation.’
T-231/99, [2002] ECR II – 2085, [2002] EUECJ T-231/99
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173742
ECFI In order to establish whether, in the course of assessing whether an export aid in the book sector may be regarded as compatible with the common market, competition is affected to an extent that is contrary to the common interest for the purposes of Article 92(3)(d)of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3)(d)EC), it is necessary to define the market on which the aid takes effect. So far as concerns the material definition of the market, in order to be considered the subject of a sufficiently distinct market, it must be possible to distinguish the service or the good in question by virtue of particular characteristics that so differentiate it from other services or other goods that it is only to a small degree interchangeable with those alternatives and affected by competition from them. In that context, the degree of interchangeability between products or services must be assessed in terms of their objective characteristics, as well as the structure of supply and demand on the market, and competitive conditions.
The Commission must examine the effects of a State aid on competition and trade between the other operators carrying on the same activity as that for which the aid was granted, so as to carry out an assessment of the true impact of such an aid on competition. Unless it carries out such an assessment, the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment as regards the definition of the market.
T-155/98, [2002] EUECJ T-155/98
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173570
Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) – Dominant position and joint dominant position – Abuse – Fine.
[1999] ECR II-2969, [1999] EUECJ T-228/97
European
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173416
ECJ Dumping – Textile footwear originating in the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia – Commission Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty – Action for annulment – Subsequent regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty – No need to adjudicate.
[1998] EUECJ T-73/97
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173345
ECJ Competition – Consequences of partial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty – Effects of the judgment on persons to whom the decision was addressed who did not bring an action for annulment – Article 176 of the Treaty – Request for partial refund of fines paid.
B Vesterdorf, P
T-227/95, [1997] EUECJ T-227/95
See Also – Commissioners of the European Communities v Assidoman Kraft Produncts Ab and Others ECJ 14-Sep-1999
Wood Pulp II
A decision of the Commission imposing penalties against several business concerns was challenged successfully by some of those penalised. Others who had not made the challenge applied to have the decision annulled for themselves also. The court said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173129
ECJ Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty – Proof of participation in collusion – Fine – Turnover – Determination of the amount – Mitigating circumstances.
T-304/94, [1998] EUECJ T-304/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172921
ECJ Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty – Liability for the infringement- Fine – Statement of reasons – Mitigating circumstances.
T-308/94, [1998] EUECJ T-308/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172923
Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC-Treaty – Concept of single infringement – Information exchange – Order to desist – Fine – Determination of the amount – Method of calculation – Statement of reasons – Mitigating circumstances.
T-334/94, [1998] EUECJ T-334/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172938
ECJ Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC-Treaty – Proof of participation in collusion – Fine – Determination of the amount – Statement of reasons.
T-295/94, [1998] EUECJ T-295/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172915
ECFI 1 The fact that an undertaking which has been proved to have participated in collusion on prices with its competitors did not behave on the market in the manner agreed with its competitors is not necessarily a matter which must be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance when determining the amount of the fine to be imposed. An undertaking which, despite colluding with its competitors, follows a more or less independent policy on the market may simply be trying to exploit the cartel for its own benefit.
2 A reduction in the amount of the fine on grounds of cooperation during the administrative procedure is justified only if the conduct enabled the Commission to establish an infringement more easily and, where relevant, to bring it to an end.
3 By its nature, the fixing of a fine by the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction is not an arithmetically precise operation. Moreover, the Court is not bound by the Commission’s calculations, but must carry out its own assessment, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
C.W. Bellamy
T-138/94, [1999] EUECJ T-138/94
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172830
ECJ Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Trade unions and works councils – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Sufficient interest giving the recognized representatives of the employees the right to submit their observations, upon application, in the administrative procedure.
[1995] EUECJ T-12/93
See Also – Comitu Central d’Entreprise de la SA Vittel and Comitu d’Etablissement de Pierval v Commission of the European Communities ECFI 6-Jul-1993
ECFI Where the effect of suspending the operation of a Commission decision authorizing, at the request of employees’ representative bodies in some of the undertakings concerned, a concentration between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172639
ECJ Competition – Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream – Relevant market – Possible barriers to entry to the market by third parties – Trade between Member States – Comfort letter – Block exemption – Lawfulness of withdrawal of the exemption – Prohibition of conclusion of exclusive agreements in the future.
The agreements providing for the exclusive purchase of ice cream could be terminated on 6 months’ notice, the CFI held that, having regard to the economic and legal context and ‘the effective duration of the contractual agreements, which is around 2.5 years’, the agreements fell within Art. 81(1).
T-7/93, [1995] ECR II – 1533, [1995] EUECJ T-7/93
See also – Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission ECFI 8-May-1992
ECJ Where both granting a suspension of operation of a Commission decision prescribing interim measures relating to competition and refusing to grant such suspension would in practice have the effect of depriving . .
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172634
Competition – Market-sharing agreement – Commission’s Rules of Procedure – Authentication of a decision adopted by the college of Commissioners.
T-31/91, [1995] EUECJ T-31/91
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172479
Competition – Motor vehicle distribution – Regulation on exemption by categories – Concept of authorized intermediary.
T-9/92, [1993] EUECJ T-9/92
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172544
ECJ Competition – Statement of objections – Access to the file – Admissibility. Actions for annulment of measures Actionable measures Definition Measures producing binding legal effects Administrative procedure implementing the competition rules. Refusal to notify the full statement of objections to an undertaking concerned and to give it access to the entire file. Preparatory measure Excluded Rights of the defence Possible breach which might be relied upon in support of an action brought against the final decision of the Commission (EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 17; Commission Regulation No 99/63) – The measures by which the Commission refused, in an administrative procedure implementing the competition rules, first to notify part of the statement of objections to the undertakings concerned and, secondly, to give them access to all the documents making up their files are not capable of producing legal effects of such a nature as to affect the interests of those undertakings before the adoption of any decision finding that the rules of the Treaty have been infringed. They are accordingly merely procedural measures preparatory to the decision that will constitute the final stage of the administrative procedure established by Regulations Nos 17 and 99/63 and cannot, as such, form the subject matter of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. Although compliance with the rights of the defence in any procedure which might result in the imposition of a penalty constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law that must be complied with in every circumstance, the possible infringement of those rights by way of refusal to grant access to the file remains within the bounds of the prior administrative procedure in which it takes place. Were the Community judicature, in proceedings directed against a decision bringing the procedure to a close, to recognize that a full right of access to the file existed and had been infringed and therefore to annul the said decision for infringement of the rights of the defence, the entire procedure would be vitiated by illegality. In such a case the Commission should either abandon the proceedings or resume the procedure, ensuring that the rights previously disregarded were observed.
T-10/92, [1992] EUECJ T-10/92
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172545
ECJ Competition – Administrative procedure – Bringing an infringement to an end – Adoption of interim measures – Powers of the Commission – Application for interim relief for the purpose of obtaining an order requiring the Commission to reconsider a request for interim measures – Dismissed.
T-131/89, [1989] EUECJ T-131/89
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172386
ECJ Where both granting a suspension of operation of a Commission decision prescribing interim measures relating to competition and refusing to grant such suspension would in practice have the effect of depriving the final decision of the Court of First Instance of any effects in so far as such a decision could not in all likelihood be arrived at until a time at which the Commission decision had already produced, or failed to produce, its effects, depending on whether or not the suspension of operation requested is granted, it is necessary to strike a balance between the interests of sound administration of justice, on the one hand, and, on the other, the interests of the parties, including the Commission’ s interest in bringing to an end forthwith the infringement of the competition rules contained in the Treaty which it claims to have ascertained. In order to avoid both the creation of an irreversible situation and serious and irreparable damage to one of the parties to the proceedings, a temporary solution, ensuring that the market does not develop in an irreversible manner and requiring the applicant to remove certain barriers to access to the market, must be imposed, without thereby appreciably harming the exclusive distribution system which the applicant has set up over a period of many years.
T-24/92, [1992] EUECJ T-24/92R
See also – Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission ECFI 8-May-1992
Competition – Procedure for interim relief – Intervention – Confidentiality – Protective measures. . .
See also – Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission ECFI 8-May-1992
Competition – Procedure for interim relief – Intervention – Confidentiality – Protective measures. . .
See also – Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission ECFI 19-Feb-1993
ECJ Competition – Procedure for interim relief – Intervention – Confidentiality – Interim measures. . .
See also – Langnese Iglo GmbH v Commission of the European Communities ECFI 8-Jun-1995
ECJ Competition – Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream – Relevant market – Possible barriers to entry to the market by third parties – Trade between Member States – Comfort letter – Block exemption – . .
See also – Langnese-Iglo v Commission ECJ 1-Oct-1998
By virtue of Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172553
Competition – Concept of agreement and concerted practice – Collective responsibility.
T-12/89, [1992] EUECJ T-12/89
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172299
The claimants sought to re-instate an injunction, claiming Jobserve were acting to abuse their dominant market position. The claimants asserted that European case law had decided the point in their favour. Both parties operated web-sites advertising jobs in the IT sector. The trade association through which most jobs became available, used the Jobserve service. Jobserve, itself not an agency, refused to accept advertisements from those who were agencies, claiming they were competitors.
Held: There was an arguable case, and the injunction stood
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Longmore, And, Mr Justice Harrison
[2001] EWCA Civ 2018
England and Wales
Cited – Oscar Bronner v Mediaprint (Judgment) ECJ 26-Nov-1998
A major newspaper proprietor had refused to allow a small competitor access to its efficient distribution service.
Held: That amounted to an abuse of a dominant position: ‘First, it is apparent that the right to choose one’s trading partners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167308
An injunction was sought to prevent retailers marketing in the EEA products which had been obtained outside the EEA for resale within the EEA but outside the controlled distribution system.
Held: Silence alone was insufficient to constitute implied consent for the resale within the EEA of goods otherwise than in accordance with a licence from the Trade Mark owner in cases where he sought to establish a scheme of distributing only to licensed distributors and sales outlets. A consent might be implied in other circumstances. Exhaustion of rights did not take place by marketing the goods outside the EEA. Explicit consent was necessary for any exhaustion of rights, and it was for the trader alleging consent to prove it. Articles 5 to 7 of the directive embody a ‘complete harmonisation’ of the rules relating to the rights conferred by a trade mark, define the rights of trade mark proprietors in the Community.
Europa Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 7(1) – Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark – Goods placed on the market outside the EEA -Imported into the EEA – Consent of the trade mark proprietor – Whether consent required to be express or implied – Law governing the contract -Presumption of consent – Non-applicability.
(1) Articles 5 and 7TMD embodied a complete harmonisation of the rules relating to the rights conferred by a mark and the limitation on the rule of European Union exhaustion; (2) the mere fact that the proprietor of a trade mark has consented to the first marketing of goods using his mark outside the EEA does not mean that he has consented to the marketing of those goods in the EEA., and (3) the proprietor of a mark does not have to ensure that those goods bear a warning that they may not be placed on the market within the EEA. Therefore, the proprietor of a trade mark has the right to control whether or not goods using his mark are first marketed in the EEA.
Rodriguez Iglesias, P and Judges P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevon, V. Skouris and C. W. A. Timmermans Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl
Times 23-Nov-2001, C-416/99, C-414/99, C-415/99, [2002] 1 CMLR 1, [2001] EUECJ C-414/99, [2001] EUECJ C-415/99, [2001] EUECJ C-416/99, [2002] RPC 20, [2001] ECR I-8691, [2002] 2 WLR 321, [2002] CEC 154, [2002] All ER (EC) 55, [2002] Ch 109, [2002] ETMR 9
European
Cited – Silhouette International Schmied GmbH and Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH ECJ 16-Jul-1998
National Trade Mark rules providing for exhaustion of rights in Trade Marks for goods sold outside area of registration were contrary to the EU first directive on trade marks. A company could prevent sale of ‘grey goods’ within the internal market. . .
Cited – Sebago and Maison Dubois et Fils SA v GB-Unic SA ECJ 1-Jul-1999
The fact that specific goods bearing a Trade Mark had been authorised for distribution within the EEA, did not mean that the relative trade mark rights had been exhausted. They would only be exhausted where the consent related to each individual . .
Referral – Zino Davidoff SA v A and G Imports Ltd ChD 24-May-1999
Though a company could prevent parallel import within the EU, it could not prevent goods sold outside the EU but without restriction on re-sale, being subsequently re-sold into the EU. The removal of a numbering mark did not materially reduce its . .
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Roche Products Ltd and Another v Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant appealed summary judgment in a trade mark infringement case based on parallel imports of ACCU-CHEK blood testing strips for diabetics. The defendant said that the products were ‘CE’ marked and therefore intended for sale within the EU. . .
Cited – Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters and Frankau Ltd CA 8-Mar-2007
An allegation was made that Cuban cigars imported by the claimant infringed the trade marks of the respondents being either counterfeit or parallel imports, and were impounded. The claimant sought a declaration of non-infringement and their release, . .
Cited – Eli Lilly and Company and Another v 8PM Chemist Ltd CA 5-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an order refusing summary relied against a claim for trade mark infringement. The claimant’s drugs were sold internationally, but outside the EU, being sourced in Turkey, and distributed eventually through the . .
Cited – L’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others ChD 22-May-2009
The court was asked as to whether the on-line marketplace site defendant was liable for trade mark infringements by those advertising goods on the web-site.
Held: The ECJ had not yet clarified the law on accessory liability in trade mark . .
Cited – Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd and Another CA 24-Aug-2010
The claimant sought to prevent import from China of its own second hand computer disc drives said to infringe its trade marks. It had granted an exclusive licence for the sale of its equipment in Europe and alleged that this was a parallel import. . .
Cited – Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd SC 27-Jun-2012
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166851
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof – Germany.
Article 6(1)(d), last sentence, of Directive 76/768/EEC, as amended by Directive 93/35/EEC – Prescribed labelling ‘impossible for practical reasons’ – Justification for putting abbreviated forms of compulsory warnings on the containers and packaging of cosmetic products – Information provided in nine languages in the interests of greater flexibility in the marketing of cosmetic products.
[2001] EUECJ C-169/99, C-169/99
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166204
The claimant companies which provided parking facilities at the defendant’s airport said that the choices made by the airport in controlling the collection etc of passenger’s cars was an abuse of its dominant position.
Mann J
[2011] EWHC 987 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.432785
It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether it should be stood over for a summary assessment. In the absence of other aggravating features, it was wrong to refuse entirely a party his costs. The remedy was disproportionate. The court should make use of other ways of penalising a party in default.
Times 28-Dec-2000, Gazette 08-Feb-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83270
(Judgment) Common commercial policy – Anti-dumping measures – Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 – Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan – Reference for a preliminary ruling on whether that regulation is valid – Failure by the plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking annulment of the regulation
[2001] EUECJ C-239/99
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162672
The court considered a petrol station agreement under which the operator of the station agreed to take fuel from a single supplier. The agreement was for 10 years and thereafter the operator could terminate the agreement by giving a year’s notice. Neste acquired the supplier and after the 10-year period had expired the operator stopped purchasing fuel from Neste without giving the one-year notice. Neste recovered possession of the station and sought compensation. The operator contended that the exclusive purchasing obligation was void.
Held: An exclusive purchasing agreement for fuel differs from one for other products such as beer or ice cream in that only one brand of fuel is sold in a petrol station and duration rather than the exclusivity clause was the decisive factor in the market-sealing affect. Another feature supporting a notice period of a year as reasonably protecting the interests of both parties and limiting the restrictive effect of the contract on competition in the relevant market. In those circumstances, when the contracts which might be terminated on one year’s notice represented only a very small proportion of all the exclusive purchasing agreements entered into by a supplier, they made no significant contribution to the cumulative effect and so were not within Art. 81 (1). ‘A relatively short notice period in certain retail markets, like those for ice cream and beer where there is far greater product differentiation than in the retail petroleum-fuels supply market, could still contribute to a not insignificant degree to an overall tying-in effect flowing from a major supplier’s network of agreements. However, if, at the time a dispute arises, the agreements in question give resellers a virtually unrestricted opportunity, without being subject to penalties on existing loans or any other disguised termination disincentives, to switch suppliers, it is difficult to conceive of any adverse effect on competition on the relevant market flowing from them.’
Advocate-General Fennelly
C-214/99, [2001] 4 CMLR 993, [2000] EUECJ C-214/99
Cited – Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG ECJ 28-Feb-1991
ECJ A beer supply agreement is prohibited by Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if two cumulative conditions are met. The first is that, having regard to the economic and legal context of the agreement at issue, it . .
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162664
ECJ National rules embodying a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards labelling, constitute technical specifications within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, irrespective of the grounds on which they were adopted. The inapplicability of a technical regulation as a legal consequence of non-compliance with the obligation of notification under Article 8 of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations may be relied on in proceedings between individuals. The same applies to non-compliance with the obligation to observe the periods of postponement of adoption of a draft technical regulation pursuant to Article 9 of that directive. Whilst it is true that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied on as such against an individual, that case-law does not apply in proceedings between individuals where non-compliance with Article 8 or Article 9 of Directive 83/189, which constitutes a substantial procedural defect, renders a technical regulation adopted in breach of either of those articles inapplicable. In such proceedings, Directive 83/189, which creates neither rights nor obligations for individuals, does not in any way define the substantive scope of the legal rule on the basis of which the national court must decide the case before it. It is therefore incumbent on the national court, in civil proceedings between individuals concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Directive 83/189.
C-443/98, [2000] EUECJ C-443/98
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162558
(Judgment) Action for annulment – Plan to grant State aid in the field of power semiconductors – Notification of the Commission – Content of the notification and of supplementary questions put by the Commission – Nature and duration of the investigation – Commission’s right of objection – Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC)
[2001] EUECJ C-99/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:94, [2001] ECR I-1101
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162356
(Judgment) Competition – National legislation allowing only ‘recognised dockers’ to perform certain dock duties – Meaning of ‘undertaking’ – Special or exclusive rights
[1999] EUECJ C-22/98
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162317
[1998] EWHC Ch 281
England and Wales
Appeal from – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .
Appeal from – Courage Ltd v Crehan; The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd v Byrne; Same v Langton; Greenalls Management Ltd v Smith; Walker Cain Ltd v McCaughey CA 14-Jun-1999
There is not to be read into a beer tie term any implied provision that the beer to be supplied under the term was to be supplied at any kind of advantageous price. A tenant seeking damages for failure to supply under such a term was not entitled to . .
See Also – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan CA 12-Nov-2001
. .
See Also – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Cpc), Brewman Group Limited ChD 26-Jun-2003
The landlord had signed agreements tieing him to sales of beers. After falling into debt, he challnged the prices he had been obliged to pay as contravening the Treaty. The European Court had held that there was a possible claim under the Treaty. . .
See Also – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
See Also – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.135872
The Hon Mr Justice Laddie
[1998] EWHC Ch 312, [1998] 4 All ER 468
England and Wales
Appeal from – Passmore v Morland and Co plc and Others CA 2-Feb-1999
The court was asked whether a beer supply agreement which, as between the original parties, was prohibited by Article 85(1) and so automatically void under the provisions of Article 85(2), may, nevertheless, be enforced by an assignee from one party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.135889
ECJ Competition – Application by an arbitration tribunal, of its own motion, of Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) – Power of national courts to annul arbitration awards.
‘Article [81] of the Treaty constitutes a fundamental provision which is essential for the accomplishment of the tasks entrusted to the Community and, in particular, for the functioning of the internal market.’
C-126/97, [1999] EUECJ C-126/97, [1999] ECR 1-3055
Cited – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.162087
ECJ It is clear from the very wording of Articles 85(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) and 86(a) to (d) of the Treaty (now Articles 81(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) EC and 82(a) to (d) EC) that the same practice may give rise to an infringement of both provisions. Simultaneous application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty cannot therefore be ruled out a priori. However, the objectives pursued by each of those two provisions must be distinguished. Article 85 of the Treaty applies to agreements, decisions and concerted practices which may appreciably affect trade between Member States, regardless of the position on the market of the undertakings concerned. Article 86 of the Treaty, on the other hand, deals with the conduct of one or more economic operators consisting in the abuse of a position of economic strength which enables the operator concerned to hinder the maintenance of effective competition on the relevant market by allowing it to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and, ultimately, consumers.
C-395/96, [2000] ECR I-1365, [2000] EUECJ C-395/96-P
At First Instance – Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1201) ECFI 8-Oct-1996
. .
Cited – Adidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.162004
(Judgment) Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (EC Treaty, Art. 169)
[1997] EUECJ C-311/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161950
(Judgment) Competition – Luxury cosmetic products – Selective distribution system – Obligation to export to a non-member country – Prohibition of re-importation into, and of marketing in, the Community
C-306/96, [1998] EUECJ C-306/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161946
ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Vehicle distribution – Validity of exclusive dealership agreement – Article 85(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty – Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 – Regulation (EC) No 1475/95
[1998] EUECJ C-230/96, C-230/96, [1998] EUECJ C-230/96
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161905
A drink being a blend of various whisky’s and water but with minimum strength only greater than 30 per cent was not entitled to be called a whisky. Dilution destroyed the right to claim the title.
Times 21-Aug-1998, C-136/96, [1998] EUECJ C-136/96
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161841
ECJ (Judgment) Public procurement – Procedure for the award of public works contracts – State printing office – Subsidiary pursuing commercial activities
G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P
[1998] EUECJ C-44/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161781