Category: Commercial

Gesellschaft fur Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) v Osterreichische Autobahnen und Schnellstrassen AG (OSAG): ECJ 19 Jun 2003

Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts – Power of the body responsible for review procedures to consider infringements of its own motion – Directive 93/36/EEC- Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Selection criteria – Award criteria

Citations:

[2003] ECR I-6351, [2003] EUECJ C-315/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v Energysolutions EU Ltd (Now Called ATK Energy EU Ltd) SC 11-Apr-2017
This is an appeal on preliminary points of European Union and domestic law regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Directive (Parliament and Council . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.184162

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v Energysolutions EU Ltd (Now Called ATK Energy EU Ltd): SC 11 Apr 2017

This is an appeal on preliminary points of European Union and domestic law regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts as given effect in the United Kingdom by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. The claimant was part of a consortium bidding for a contract for nuclear decommissioning. They complained that the process did not meet the requirements. The issues before the court related to the availability of damages for a breach of the procurement requirements, and whether the matter required a reference to the ECJ.
Held: No reference was required, and the decision of the CA was confirmed in part (see below).
‘there is in my view very clear authority of the Court of Justice confirming that the liability of a contracting authority under the Remedies Directive for breach of the PP Directive is assimilated to that of the state or of a public body for which the state is responsible. ‘
However the CA erred in considering that no additional elements were necessary before a claim for damages could be made: ‘The scheme of the Remedies Directive is a balanced one. The Francovich conditions represent the Court of Justice’s conclusion as to the appropriate minimum protection by way of damages which an economic operator can expect. Although there is no Marleasing imperative to construe the scheme so far as possible consistently with the Francovich conditions, it is I think a natural assumption that the UK legislator will not go further than required by EU law when implementing such a scheme, without considering this and making it clear. That is fortified by the legislator’s clear intention not to gold plate when substituting the new Part 9 scheme for the old in 2009. In these circumstances, I consider that the 2006 Regulations as amended in 2009 should be read as providing for damages only upon satisfaction of the Francovich conditions. That is also consistent with the use of the word ‘may’ which otherwise seems to me to have no real significance.’ NDA’s appeal as to this element succeeded.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 34, [2017] WLR(D) 272, [2017] 3 CMLR 13, [2017] BLR 351, [2017] 4 All ER 1, [2017] 1 WLR 1373, 171 Con LR 16, [2017] PTSR 539, UKSC 2016/0006

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 010317 am Video, SC 01032017pm Video, SC 02032017am Video

Statutes:

(Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, Public Contracts Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Energysolutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority TCC 29-Jul-2016
Claim challenging the procurement of decommissioning contracts.
Held: CFP should have been disqualified from the competition for failing two threshold requirements, and, in any event, RSS would have won the competition had the NDA not made . .
Appeal from – Energysolutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority CA 15-Dec-2015
The claimant had tendered for a part in a major nuclear decommissioning project. . .
Cited – Gebroeders Beentjes Bv v State Of The Netherlands ECJ 20-Sep-1988
(Approximation Of Laws ) Procedure for the award of public works contracts.
The provisions of the Directives were unconditional and sufficiently precise to be relied upon by persons before national courts, despite the absence of explicit . .
Cited – Francovich, Bonifaci and others v Italy ECJ 19-Nov-1991
LMA The claimants, a group of ex-employees sought arrears of wages on their employers’ insolvency. The European Directive required Member States to provide a guarantee fund to ensure payment of employees’ arrears . .
Cited – Brasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
Cited – Gesellschaft fur Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) v Osterreichische Autobahnen und Schnellstrassen AG (OSAG) ECJ 19-Jun-2003
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts – Power of the body responsible for review procedures to consider . .
Cited – Kobler v Republik Osterreich ECJ 30-Sep-2003
The claimant’s claim had been presented to the Supreme Administrative Court in Austria, who had referred a question to the ECJ. Following the Schoning decision, the court withdrew the referral, and dismissed the claim. He now claimed damages from . .
Cited – Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA; Antonio Cannito v Fondiaria Sai SpA, Nicolo Tricarico; Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA C-295/04 ECJ 13-Jul-2006
ECJ Article 81 EC- Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds – Compulsory civil liability insurance – Increase in premiums – Effect on . .
Cited – Rizeni Letoveho Provozu UR SP v Bundesamt fur Finanzen ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa (Taxation) Thirteenth VAT Directive Article 2(2) GATS Most-favoured-nation clause Interpretation of secondary Community law in the light of international agreements concluded by the Community . .
Cited – Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw v De Jonge Konstruktie And Others (Law Relating To Undertakings) ECJ 14-Sep-2010
ECJ (Opinion) Public procurement – Review procedures concerning the award of public supply and public works – Provisional Measures – Damage and losses arising from breach of EU law – Criteria for the allocation . .
Cited – Strabag and Others (Freedom To Provide Services) ECJ 30-Sep-2010
ECJ Directive 89/665/EEC – Public procurement – Review procedures – Actions for damages – Unlawful award – National rule on liability based on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault. . .
At CA – Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority TCC 23-Jan-2014
This litigation concerns the procurement process for a contract in relation to the decommissioning of nuclear installations. The Claimant is a company which provides integrated waste management and decommissioning services for the nuclear industry. . .
Cited – Association Justice and Environment v Commission ECFI 23-Jan-2017
ECJ (Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic – Refusal of access – Exception concerning . .
At TCC (2) – Energysolutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority TCC 29-Jul-2016
Claim challenging the procurement of decommissioning contracts.
Held: CFP should have been disqualified from the competition for failing two threshold requirements, and, in any event, RSS would have won the competition had the NDA not made . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Disapproved – Matra Communication SAS v Home Office CA 25-Feb-1999
In the absence of comparable situations, a member state is entitled to choose the time limits within which a public service contract is to be challenged, provided only that it did not make it impossible to challenge and there was no prejudice . .
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Cited – Norbrook Laboratories v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ECJ 2-Apr-1998
ECJ Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC – Veterinary medicinal products – Marketing authorisation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Contract, Commercial, Damages

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.581646

Energysolutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: TCC 29 Jul 2016

Claim challenging the procurement of decommissioning contracts.
Held: CFP should have been disqualified from the competition for failing two threshold requirements, and, in any event, RSS would have won the competition had the NDA not made ‘many manifest errors’ in its assessment of the tenders, but for which the NDA would have awarded RSS a score of 91.48% and CFP a score of only 85.56%.
Held: The court allowed the claim, having found (i) that CFP should have been disqualified from the competition for failing two threshold requirements, and (ii) that, in any event, RSS would have won the competition had the NDA not made ‘many manifest errors’ (para 944) in its assessment of the tenders, but for which the NDA would have awarded RSS a score of 91.48% and CFP a score of only 85.56%.

Judges:

Fraser J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority TCC 23-Jan-2014
This litigation concerns the procurement process for a contract in relation to the decommissioning of nuclear installations. The Claimant is a company which provides integrated waste management and decommissioning services for the nuclear industry. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v Energysolutions EU Ltd (Now Called ATK Energy EU Ltd) SC 11-Apr-2017
This is an appeal on preliminary points of European Union and domestic law regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Directive (Parliament and Council . .
At TCC (2) – Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v Energysolutions EU Ltd (Now Called ATK Energy EU Ltd) SC 11-Apr-2017
This is an appeal on preliminary points of European Union and domestic law regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Directive (Parliament and Council . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.567833

Soliver v Commission: ECFI 10 Oct 2014

ECFI Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European market in carglass – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Single and continuous infringement – Participation in the infringement

Judges:

N.J. Forwood (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

T-68/09, [2014] EUECJ T-68/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.537528

Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbauund Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft: ECJ 18 Nov 2008

ECJ Opinion – Preliminary reference – Competition – Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases Whether such a body is to be treated as an undertaking Limits of powers of the Member States to organise their social security systems – Compliance with Community law Freedom to provide services

Judges:

Mazak AG

Citations:

C-350/07, [2008] EUECJ C-350/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbauund Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft ECJ 5-Mar-2009
ECJ Competition Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases Concept of an ‘undertaking’ Abuse of dominant position . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.514934

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 appeal succeeded. Where there was an appeal against the infringement itself, the two year period was extended pending the resolution of that appeal. Where the appeal lay only against the penalty imposed, the period was not extended. The clamants would have to apply again to extend the limitation period so as to allow a claim.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 434, Times 09-Jul-2009, [2009] Bus LR 1516, [2009] UKCLR 789

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 47A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also (CAT costs) – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .
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 . .

Cited by:

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.

Commercial, Damages, European

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346305

The Sormovskiy 3068: QBD 1994

It makes commercial sense to have a simple rule that in the absence of an express term of the contract the master must only deliver the cargo to the holder of the bill of lading who presents it to him. In that way both the shipowners and the persons in truth entitled to possession of the cargo are protected by the terms of the contract.

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 266

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Commercial

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.181893

Pedro IV Servicios v Total Espana SA: ECJ 2 Apr 2009

ECJ Competition – Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 81 EC Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels – Exemption Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 Article 12(2) – Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 Articles 4(a) and 5(a) – Period of exclusivity – Retail price’fixing

Judges:

A. Rosas, P

Citations:

C-260/07, [2009] EUECJ C-260/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC 81, Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 12(2), Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 4(a) 5(a)

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342044

Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission: ECFI 6 May 2009

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for copper industrial tubes Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Fines – Size of the market concerned Aggravating circumstances – Repeat infringement

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ T-122/04

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342056

Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission (Competition) C-338/07: ECJ 2 Apr 2009

Opinion – Appeals Agreements Carbonless paper market Article 81 EC Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the decision Infringement of the rights of the defense Consequences Reasonable length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance Distortion of the evidence Participation in the infringement Duration of the infringement Infringement Regulation No 17 Article 15 (2) Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of fines Principle of proportionality Principle of equal treatment Duty to state reasons

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-338/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission (Competition) C-338/07 ECJ 3-Sep-2009
Appeals Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Carbonless paper Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision Infringement of the rights of the defence Consequences Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342041

Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission: ECJ 30 Apr 2009

ECJ (Competition) – Opinion – Competition Appeal Entente European market for haberdashery and needle market-sharing agreements Violation of the rights of defense Obligation to state reasons Guidelines on Fines Gravity of the infringement Getting Oevre the agreement Actual impact on the market

Citations:

C-534/07, [2009] EUECJ C-534/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission ECJ 3-Sep-2009
ECJ Judgment – Appeal Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices European haberdashery market (needles) Market sharing agreements Infringement of the rights of the defence Obligation to state the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342045

A Menarini and Others v Ministero della Salute C-400/07: ECJ 2 Apr 2009

ECJ Social Policy – Directive 89/105/EEC – Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use – Article 4 Price freeze – Price reduction

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-400/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 89/105/EEC 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health Professions, Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342015

Itochu v Commission (Competition): ECFI 30 Apr 2009

ECJ Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for video games consoles and games cartridges compatible with Nintendo games consoles – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Limitation of parallel exports Attributability of the infringement – Fines – Differential treatment – Deterrent effect – Duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances Cooperation during the administrative procedure.
The court discussed the nature of an entity within European law.
Held: The fact that a subsidiary has separate legal personality is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of its conduct being imputed to the parent company, especially where the subsidiary does not independently determine its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company . . In the specific case of a parent company holding 100% of the capital of a subsidiary which has committed an infringement, the Court of Justice stated in Case 107/82 AEG-Telefunken v Commission [1983] ECR 3151, paragraph 50, that it was not necessary to ascertain whether that company had in actual fact influenced the commercial policy of its subsidiary, in so far as that subsidiary necessarily follows the policy laid down by the same bodies as, under its statutes, determine the parent company’s policy. In such a case, there is a simple presumption that the parent company exercises decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary. It is thus for a parent company which disputes before the Community judicature a Commission decision fining it for the conduct of its subsidiary to rebut that presumption by adducing evidence to establish that its subsidiary was independent . . That being so, it is sufficient for the Commission to show that the entire capital of a subsidiary is held by the parent company in order to conclude that the parent company exercises decisive influence over its commercial policy. The Commission will then be able to hold the parent company jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary, unless the parent company proves that the subsidiary does not, in essence, comply with the instructions which it issues and, as a consequence, acts autonomously on the market.’

Citations:

T-12/03, [2009] EUECJ T-12/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Crest Nicholson Plc v Office of Fair Trading Admn 24-Jul-2009
The company challenged as unfair its treatment by the respondent in imposing fines for anti-competive behaviour. The claimant was successor of the company who had misbehaved, but the claimant no longer operated in the area and had no employees from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Company

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342034

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v Office Of Communications: CAT 26 Mar 2009

Rates charged for mobile voice call termination.

Citations:

[2009] CAT 8

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 14-Nov-2007
Donor Conveyance Charge . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Nov-2007
Termination Rate Dispute . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc CAT 20-May-2008
The dispute resolution functions of Ofcom are regulatory . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 23-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 15-Aug-2008
. .
Cited – T-Mobile (UK) Ld v Office of Communications CAT 3-Sep-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341618

British Airways Plc v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 2007

ECJ Opinion – Appeals – Abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC) – British Airways – Agreements with travel agents – Commission and other benefits dependent upon turnover in British Airways tickets

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-95/04, [2006] EUECJ C-95/04

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – British Airways Plc v Commission ECJ 15-Mar-2007
ECJ Judgment – Appeals – Abuse of dominant position – Airline – Agreements with travel agents – Bonuses linked to growth in sales of that airline’s tickets over a given period in comparison with a reference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport, Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341253

T-Mobile Netherlands and Others: ECJ 19 Feb 2009

Europa Competition Article 81(1) EC Concerted practices Practice having the object of prevention, restriction or distortion of competition Criteria for assessing the object of a practice Only an isolated concerted action Causal link between concertation and market conduct of the participating undertakings Burden of proof Presumption of a causal link.

Citations:

C-8/08, [2009] EUECJ C-8/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – T-Mobile Netherlands and Others ECJ 4-Jun-2009
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling Article 81(1) EC Concept of ‘concerted practice’ Causal connection between concerted action and the market conduct of undertakings Appraisal in accordance with the rules of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.312006

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 been instituted in the ECJ, with the result that the Claimants’ claim was not time-barred by that rule.

Judges:

Barling J

Citations:

[2008] CAT 29

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .
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. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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 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 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 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.297335

The Number (UK) Ltd and Another v Office of Communications: CAT 24 Nov 2008

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2008] CAT 33

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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. . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Aps Samex 1983
It is generally right for the court to find the facts before referring questions of law to the European Court of Justice.
Bingham J restated the four requirement sfor a reference set out in Bulmer, saying: ‘(1) Will the point be substantially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, European

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.297341

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.

Judges:

Barling J

Citations:

[2008] CAT 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 47A

Citing:

See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .

Cited by:

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 – 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.

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.297333

Schenker C-93/08: ECJ 12 Feb 2009

ECJ (Commercial Policy) Reference for a preliminary ruling Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 Article 11 Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction Prior determination whether an intellectual property right has been infringed Administrative penalty.

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-93/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.286166

Commission v Schneider Electric: ECJ 3 Feb 2009

(Competition) Appeal Operations in respect of undertakings Market in the distribution of electricity – Damage resulting from the Commission’s conduct in assessing the concentration Conditions for the non-contractual liability of the Community

Citations:

C-440/07, [2009] EUECJ C-440/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Commission v Schneider Electric ECJ 16-Jul-2009
ECJ Grand Chamber – Appeal Concentrations Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Commission decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market Annulment Non contractual liability of the Community on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Utilities

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.286156

A Bruensteiner Gmbh C-377/05: ECJ 30 Nov 2006

CJEU Competition – Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles – Block exemption – Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 – Article 5(3) – Termination by the supplier – Reorganisation of the network – Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 – Article 4(1) – Hardcore restrictions – Consequences.

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ C-377/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.246779

World Wide Tobacco Espana v Commission (Competition): ECFI 8 Mar 2011

ECJ Competition – Cartels – Spanish for the purchase and initial processing of raw tobacco – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market sharing – Fines – Deterrence – Equal treatment – Mitigating Circumstances – Maximum limit of 10% of sales – Cooperation.

Citations:

T-37/05, [2011] EUECJ T-37/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.430729

Belfass SPRL v Council: ECFI 21 May 2008

CJEU (Law Relating To Undertakings) Public service contracts Community tendering procedure Obvious material error Award to the most economically advantageous tender Offer abnormally low Article 139 (1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 Exception of illegality Terms of Reference Admissibility

Citations:

T-495/04, [2008] EUECJ T-495/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.267959

Easyjet v Commission: ECFI 4 Jul 2006

ECFI Competition – Concentrations – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Action brought by a third party – Admissibility – Air transport market – Commitments.

Judges:

J. Pirrung, P

Citations:

T-177/04, [2006] EUECJ T-177/04

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.243017

Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others (No 2): ChD 6 Nov 2008

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others ChD 8-Aug-2008
Various racecourses had combined together to sell the rights to televise their races to bookmakers. The bookmakers complained that the combination was anti-competitive and in breach of European law. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Commercial, European

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277736

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, freedom to trade there.

Judges:

Mocatta P

Citations:

[1978] 1 QB 52

Statutes:

Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Confirmed – The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football Association Limited, The Football League Limited (And Their Respective Member Clubs) v British Sky Broadcasting Limited, British Broadcasting Limited RPC 28-Jul-1999
Agreements had been made controlling the broadcasting of football matches. The director general sought to challenge them as restrictive practices, since the individual clubs had signed away their right themselves to arrange for the broadcasting of . .
Cited – Williams, Williams v Kiley T/A CK Supermarkets Limited CA 21-Nov-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.182972

Esso And Others v Commission: ECFI 11 Jul 2014

ECFI Judgment of The Court of First Instance – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Paraffin waxes market – Slack wax market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price fixing and market sharing – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Duration of the infringement – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Unlimited jurisdiction

Judges:

O Czucz (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

T-540/08, [2014] EUECJ T-540/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.534338

RWE and RWE DEA v Commission: ECFI 11 Jul 2014

ECFI Judgment – Competition – Cartels – paraffin wax – slack wax market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Responsibility of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiary and a joint venture partially owned by it – exercised decisive influence by the parent company – Presumption in case of detention of a 100% – Succession – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Guidelines for calculating fines 2006 – Full jurisdiction

Judges:

O. Czucz (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

T-543/08, [2014] EUECJ T-543/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.534345

T-Mobile (UK) Ld v Office of Communications: CAT 3 Sep 2008

Citations:

[2008] CAT 21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 14-Nov-2007
Donor Conveyance Charge . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Nov-2007
Termination Rate Dispute . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc CAT 20-May-2008
The dispute resolution functions of Ofcom are regulatory . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 23-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 15-Aug-2008
. .

Cited by:

Cited – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v Office Of Communications CAT 26-Mar-2009
Rates charged for mobile voice call termination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276919

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another: CAT 15 Aug 2008

Citations:

[2008] CAT 19

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 14-Nov-2007
Donor Conveyance Charge . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Nov-2007
Termination Rate Dispute . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc CAT 20-May-2008
The dispute resolution functions of Ofcom are regulatory . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 23-Jul-2008
. .

Cited by:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ld v Office of Communications CAT 3-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v Office Of Communications CAT 26-Mar-2009
Rates charged for mobile voice call termination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276917

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another: CAT 23 Jul 2008

Citations:

[2008] CAT 17

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 14-Nov-2007
Donor Conveyance Charge . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Nov-2007
Termination Rate Dispute . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc CAT 20-May-2008
The dispute resolution functions of Ofcom are regulatory . .

Cited by:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 15-Aug-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ld v Office of Communications CAT 3-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v Office Of Communications CAT 26-Mar-2009
Rates charged for mobile voice call termination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276915

Kanal 5 and TV 4 v Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra: ECJ 11 Sep 2008

ECJ (Competition) Article 82 EC Dominant position Abuse Collective copyright management body De facto monopoly Television broadcasting Method of calculation of remuneration

Citations:

C-52/07, [2008] EUECJ C-52/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Order – Kanal 5 and TV 4 v Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra ECJ 11-Dec-2008
ECJ Competition – Copyright – Copyright management organisation enjoying a de facto monopoly – Collection of royalties relating to the broadcast of musical works – Method of calculating those royalties – Dominant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276382

Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others: ChD 8 Aug 2008

Various racecourses had combined together to sell the rights to televise their races to bookmakers. The bookmakers complained that the combination was anti-competitive and in breach of European law.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1978 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998, EC Treaty 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others (No 2) ChD 6-Nov-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Intellectual Property, European, Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272305

Hugh Mack and Co Ltd v Burns and Laird Lines Ltd: 1944

The shipment was of men’s clothing carried pursuant to a consignment note and receipt stamped ‘Non-negotiable’. The consignment note named consignees in Scotland and stated: ‘Please receive for forwarding per Burns and Laird Lines’ steamers the undernoted goods . .’ These documents were retained by the shipper. The goods were damaged and the shipper claimed against the carrier, which relied on terms incorporated into its receipt. The shipper said that the Hague Rules applied by virtue of the 1924 Act.
Held: The claim failed on two grounds. The consignment note and receipt was not a bill of lading or any similar document of title; and in any event the parties had freedom of contract under article VI as amended in the case of coastal trade within the British Isles and Ireland by section 4 of the 1924 Act. The receipt, even if properly described as a ‘document of title,’ was not ‘similar to’ a bill of lading. It had none of its characteristics, being different in form; given at a different time; bearing no stamp; does not acknowledge the goods to be on board any particular ship; it was retained by the consignor, not sent to the consignee; and above all, it was not a negotiable instrument, the indorsement and delivery of which could affect the property in the goods shipped.

Judges:

Andrews LCJ

Citations:

(1944) Ll L Rep 377

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Commercial, Contract

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.181889

Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze v Data Medical Service: ECJ 18 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public service contracts – Directive 92/50/EEC – Articles 1(c) and 37 – Directive 2004/18/EC – First subparagraph of Article 1(8) and Article 55 – Concepts of ‘service provider’ and ‘economic operator’ – Public university hospital – Entity with legal personality and business and organisational autonomy – Principally non-profit-making activity – Institutional purpose of offering health services – Possibility of offering similar services on the market – Admission to participate in a tendering procedure for the award of a public contract

Judges:

T. von Danwitz, P

Citations:

C-568/13, [2014] EUECJ C-568/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2466

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 92/50/EEC, Directive 2004/18/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.540327

Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale RM/C: ECJ 24 Apr 2008

ECJ Opinion – Law Relating To Undertakings – Directive 2000/35 Article 5, paragraph 1 – Fight against late payments in commercial transactions Recovery Procedure unchallenged claims – Delay in obtaining an enforceable execution against the public administration – Suspension of execution of the writ of execution

Judges:

Trstenjak AG

Citations:

C-265/07, [2008] EUECJ C-265/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2000/35 5

Cited by:

Opinion – Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale RM/C ECJ 11-Sep-2008
Commercial transactions Directive 2000/35/EC – Combating of late payment Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267101

PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, Regina (on The Application of) v Her Majesty’s Treasury and Others: ECJ 28 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment : Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – Restrictive Measures) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Provisions of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Validity – Jurisdiction of the Court – EU-Russia Partnership Agreement – Obligation to state reasons – Principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa – Access to capital markets – Financial assistance – Global Depositary Receipts – Oil sector – Request for interpretation of concepts of ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ – Inadmissibility

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:236, [2017] EUECJ C-72/15, [2017] WLR(D) 214, [2017] 3 WLR 1031, [2018] QB 1

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, International

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.581155

Commission v Italy: ECJ 8 Nov 2006

ECJ (Opinion) Public procurement – Criteria for the application of Community rules to mixed contracts – Application of the principles of transparency and equal treatment to contracts excluded on grounds of value – Award of contracts for urban development works; of contracts for the design, supervision and inspection of works the value of which is below the Community thresholds; of contracts for the supervision and inspection of works; and of public works contracts to private promoters

Judges:

Colomer AG

Citations:

C-412/04, [2006] EUECJ C-412/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Commission v Italy ECJ 21-Feb-2008
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Public works, supply and service contracts Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 93/38/EEC – Transparency – Equal treatment – Contracts excluded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.265946

Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Ntrp v Council (Commercial Policy): ECFI 10 Mar 2009

ECJ Dumping Imports of certain seamless tubes and pipes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine – Calculation of the normal value – Cooperation of the Community industry – Adjustment Functions comparable to those of an agent working on a commission basis – Single economic entity – Manifest error of assessment Offer of an undertaking Rights of the defence – Duty to state reasons.

Citations:

T-249/06, [2009] EUECJ T-249/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.317969

Basf v Commission (Competition): ECFI 12 Dec 2007

ECJ Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the vitamin products sector Choline chloride (vitamin B4) – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area Fines Deterrence Repeat infringement Cooperation during the administrative procedure Single and continuous infringement.

Citations:

T-111/05, [2007] EUECJ T-111/05

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262904

Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Competition): ECFI 12 Dec 2007

ECJ Competition Cartels in the vitamin products sector Choline chloride (Vitamin B4) Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area Attributability of the infringement.
‘The concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC includes economic entities which consist of a unitary organisation of personal, tangible and intangible elements, which pursue a specific economic aim on a long-term basis and can contribute to the commission of an infringement . .’

Citations:

T-112/05, [2007] EUECJ T-112/05

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Crest Nicholson Plc v Office of Fair Trading Admn 24-Jul-2009
The company challenged as unfair its treatment by the respondent in imposing fines for anti-competive behaviour. The claimant was successor of the company who had misbehaved, but the claimant no longer operated in the area and had no employees from . .
See Also – Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Competition) ECJ 23-Apr-2009
Europa Appeal Competition – Cartels Article 81(1) EC, Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Group of undertakings – Attributability of infringements – Parent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Company

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262920

Asociacion Profesional De Empresas De Reparto Y Manipulado De Correspondencia v Administracion General del Estado: ECJ 18 Dec 2007

ECJ (Freedom To Provide Services) – Public procurement Liberalisation of postal services Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC’ Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts.

Citations:

[2007] ECR I-12175, [2007] EUECJ C-220/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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.

Commercial, Administrative

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262902

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications: CAT 20 Nov 2007

Termination Rate Dispute

Citations:

[2007] CAT 31

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 14-Nov-2007
Donor Conveyance Charge . .

Cited by:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc CAT 20-May-2008
The dispute resolution functions of Ofcom are regulatory . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 23-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 15-Aug-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ld v Office of Communications CAT 3-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v Office Of Communications CAT 26-Mar-2009
Rates charged for mobile voice call termination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262266

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications: CAT 14 Nov 2007

Donor Conveyance Charge

Citations:

[2007] CAT 32

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Nov-2007
Termination Rate Dispute . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc CAT 20-May-2008
The dispute resolution functions of Ofcom are regulatory . .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 23-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and others v Vodafone Ltd and Another CAT 15-Aug-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ld v Office of Communications CAT 3-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Others v Office Of Communications CAT 26-Mar-2009
Rates charged for mobile voice call termination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262265

Sumitomo Chemical v Commission (Competition): ECJ 6 Oct 2005

Europa Competition – Cartels in the vitamin sector – Commission Decision finding infringements that have ceased and not imposing fines – Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 – Time-limit on the power of the Commission to impose fines or penalties – Principle of legal certainty – Presumption of innocence – Legitimate interest in finding that infringements have been committed.

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ T-23/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.231094

Bollore Sa v Commission: ECJ 26 Apr 2007

Ecj (Competition) – Competition Cartels – Carbonless paper Guidelines on the method of setting fines Duration of the infringement Gravity of the infringement Increase for deterrence Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances Leniency Notice.

Judges:

M. Vilaras, P

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ T-109/02, [2008] ECR II-947

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251861

Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 20 Nov 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 14-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 17-Feb-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249553

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 competence of the Commission

Judges:

M. Vilaras, P

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ T-46/03, T-46/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Order – Leali v Commission ECFI 20-Oct-2003
Order – Application for interim measures – Competition. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.536569

Asnef-Equifax: ECJ 23 Nov 2006

ECJ Competition – Article 81 EC – System for the exchange between financial institutions of information on customer solvency – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Effect on trade between Member States – Restriction of competition – Benefit for consumers.

Citations:

C-238/05, [2006] EUECJ C-238/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246387

Celesio Ag v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 8 Sep 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Commercial

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245508

Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 17 Feb 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 14-Oct-2005
. .

Cited by:

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.

Commercial

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245504

Argos Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading: CA 19 Oct 2006

‘Appeals arising out of two distinct investigations by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) under the Competition Act 1998 (the 1998 Act, or the Act). One, referred to at the hearing as Toys and Games, was into agreements between Hasbro UK Ltd, Argos Ltd and Littlewoods Ltd fixing the price of Hasbro toys and games. The OFT’s amended decision, number CA98/8/2003, was issued on 21 November 2003. It found that Hasbro, Argos and Littlewoods had been parties to an agreement in breach of the Chapter I prohibition under the 1998 Act. It imposed substantial penalties on Argos and Littlewoods, but not on Hasbro because of a leniency agreement in relation to that party. Argos and Littlewoods both appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) against the finding of breach of the Act and against the penalty imposed. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on liability though it reduced the penalties on each appellant. Each of Argos and Littlewoods appeals to this court, with the permission of Jonathan Parker LJ, on both liability and penalty.
The other investigation, known as Football Shirts, was into price-fixing of replica football kit. The OFT’s decision, CA98/06/2003, was issued on 1 August 2003. It found that price-fixing agreements in breach of the Chapter I prohibition had been entered into by the Football Association, Manchester United plc, Umbro Holdings Ltd and a number of retailers including JJB Sports plc (JJB), Sports Soccer Ltd and Allsports Ltd in 2000 and 2001. It imposed penalties on the parties, apart from one which was by then in administration. JJB and Allsports appealed to the Tribunal against the finding of infringement and the penalty; Umbro and Manchester United appealed only on the amount of the penalty. On liability the Tribunal held that JJB had infringed the Chapter I prohibition, but not in all the respects in which the OFT had found, so that appeal was allowed in part. Allsports’ appeal on liability was dismissed. On the appeals on penalty, the amount of each penalty was varied, in the case of JJB by a significant reduction. Only JJB appeals to this court, on liability and penalty, again with permission granted by Jonathan Parker LJ.’

Judges:

Chadwisk, Wall, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1318

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245406

Progressive Enterprises Ltd v Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd and Another: PC 23 May 2002

(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) the issue concerned a transitional provision in legislation which amended the Commerce Act 1986. The amending Act stated that it did not affect ‘any proceedings commenced’ before its own commencement. The question before the Board was whether an application by the appellant for clearance of a proposed business acquisition, made to the Commerce Commission prior to the commencement of the amending Act, was a ‘proceeding’ within the transitional phrase. If so, it was commenced before the law changed and fell to be determined accordingly.

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.177974

Endesa v Commission: ECFI 14 Jul 2006

ECJ Competition – Concentrations – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Electricity market – Decision declaring that a concentration lacks a Community dimension – Calculation of turnover – Accounting standards – Adjustments – Burden of proof – Rights of the defence

Citations:

T-417/05, [2006] EUECJ T-417/05

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243282

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 Rules or the Act, to impose such a condition when setting aside a decision and remitting a case. It was able to say that it considered the matter to be urgent.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 768, Times 26-Jul-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 688, [2007] Bus LR 338, [2006] ECC 30

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998, Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003 (2003 No 1372)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 – Freeserve.com PLC v Director General of Telecommunications (5) CAT 16-Apr-2003
Final judgment. . .
Appeal from – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
. .
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
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Crest Nicholson Plc v Office of Fair Trading Admn 24-Jul-2009
The company challenged as unfair its treatment by the respondent in imposing fines for anti-competive behaviour. The claimant was successor of the company who had misbehaved, but the claimant no longer operated in the area and had no employees from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, European

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242544