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.’
Citations:
T-231/99, [2002] ECR II – 2085, [2002] EUECJ T-231/99
Links:
Cited by:
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.
European, Commercial
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173742