ECJ Article 34 of the treaty is no bar to the admissibility of an application for annulment against an isolated provision of a decision as a whole, because an annulling judgment does not anticipate the measures which the high authority may be required to adopt in order to amend its decision, having regard to the annulment (treaty, articles 33, 34).
According to the general provisions of articles 5 and 15 of the treaty, the high authority is required to state the reasons for its decisions, mentioning those facts on which the legal justification for the measure depends and the considerations which have led it to adopt its decision . The reasons on which the decision is based must be stated in order that review by the court shall be possible . The high authority is not required to discuss all the objections which might be raised against the decision. It is not necessary to state independent and exhaustive reasons for an isolated article of a complex decision, when sufficient reasons can be deduced from the context of all the findings stated in support of the decision as a whole (treaty, articles 5, 15).
In order to judge whether there has been an infringement of essential procedural requirements, it is not necessary to examine whether the conception of the high authority is correct in law . What matters is that it must be logically compatible with the decision adopted (treaty, article 33).
In principle, it is not only a joint-selling agreement as such that is subject to authorization, but also the detailed methods of implementation and the particular rules established for that purpose (treaty, article 65).
The high authority is not required to alter the contents of an agreement which is submitted to it under article 65, in order for it to qualify for authorization (treaty, article 65).
Where it is not necessary to take into consideration and to assess economic facts in order to find that an agreement is of a restrictive nature, the court has unlimited jurisdiction to review that finding (treaty, second sentence of first paragraph of article 33).
Articles 4 (b) and 65 of the treaty govern the different aspects of economic life in their respective fields of application. Those two articles do not exclude neither do they annul each other; on the contrary, they serve to bring about the objectives of the community. They are thus complementary in this respect. In certain cases their provisions can cover acts justifying a simultaneous and concurrent application of the said articles (treaty, articles 4 (b), 65).
Discrimination between producers is possible. Where a selling agency takes into account purchases made by its wholesalers from two other given agencies, whereas the same competition should exist between them as exists between the first of those agencies and the other producers of the community – whose sales it does not take into account – that method of proceeding constitutes indirect discrimination in that it encourages the purchasers towards a preference for obtaining supplies of the products distributed by those other two agencies, to the detriment of the remaining producers of the community (treaty, article 4 (b)).
Where traders – who are purchasers within the meaning of article 4 (b) – ordering the same quantity of goods from a given selling agency are treated unequally by the said agency according to whether they also obtain supplies from certain other agencies, unequal treatment exists for inadequate reasons and it constitutes discrimination between traders (treaty, article 4 (b)).
Citations:
C-2/56, [1957] ECR 011, [1957] EUECJ C-2/56
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the application of S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Regina (Marper) v Same CA 12-Sep-2002
The applicants had been charged with offences, but later acquitted. On arrest they had had DNA samples and fingerprints taken, and the details added to the national DNA database. The police refused to remove the records after the acquittals.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131558
