swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Commercial - From: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Butler v Evans; 1980 - [1980] STC 613
Fratelli Pardini SpA C-808/79
26 Jun 1980
ECJ
European, Commercial
Europa The reference to "loss" of the export document in article 17 (7) of regulation no 193/75 includes a theft which takes place before or after the performance of the import or export transaction. Therefore the aforesaid provision must be interpreted as meaning that an exporter who has suffered the theft of an export licence or advance fixing certificate may not obtain a new licence or certificate or equivalent document permitting him to carry out the export transactions on the conditions laid down in the stolen document. It is clear from the wording of article 12 (2) of regulation no 2727/75 that the council conferred wide powers upon the commission for the purpose of implementing the system of import and export licences introduced by that provision and that the period of validity of licences or certificates is only one example of the detailed rules which may be adopted by the commission under the procedure known as the management committee procedure. Since , moreover , the function given to licences does not enable a distinction to be made between the right to carry out the transaction and the document which allegedly serves only as a manifestation of that right , there is no reason to suppose that the commission is not empowered to lay down rules in connexion with that right or to prescribe that the loss of the document shall entail the extinction of the right. It is necessary for the authorities entrusted with the management of the common organization of the markets to have available precise forecasts on future imports and exports. Whilst that objective requires that the performance of the undertaking to export or import in accordance with the licences or certificates issued be ensured by appropriate means , it also makes it necessary to ensure that the documents are used only for the transactions covered thereby. In the case of advance fixing certificates , that need is all the more imperative since the use of such certificates twice over may confer unjustified benefits upon traders and thus impose heavy financial burdens upon the community.
National Panasonic (UK) Limited v Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:1980:169; [1980] ECR 2033; [1980] EUECJ C-136/79
26 Jun 1980
ECJ
Commercial
Competition: investigations by the Commission
[ Bailii ]
Procureur De La Republique And Others v Bruno Giry And Guerlain Sa And Others; ECJ 10-Jul-1980 - R-253/78; [1980] EUECJ R-253/78
Philip Morris v Commission; ECJ 17-Sep-1980 - C-730/79; [1980] EUECJ C-730/79
Nv L'Oreal And Sa L'Oreal v Pvba De Nieuwe Amck R-31/80; [1980] EUECJ R-31/80; [1980] ECR 3775
11 Dec 1980
ECJ
European, Commercial
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 article 85(1) of the EEC treaty where such agreements, either individually or together with others, may, in the economic and legal context in which they occur and on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact, affect trade between member states and have either as their objective or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. It is for the commission alone, subject to review by the court, to grant an exemption in respect of such agreements under article 85(3).
A letter signed by an official of the commission indicating that there is no reason for the commission to take action pursuant to article 85(1) of the EEC treaty against a distribution system which has been notified to it, may not be relied upon as against third parties and is not binding on the national courts. It merely constitutes an element of fact of which the national courts may take account in considering the compatibility of the system in question with community law.
Decisions to grant exemption under articles 85(3) of the EEC treaty give rise to rights in the sense that the parties to an agreement which has been the subject of such a decision may rely on that decision as against third parties who claim that the agreement is void on the basis of article 85(2).
The behaviour of an undertaking may be considered as an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty where the undertaking enjoys in a particular market the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and the consumers and where its behaviour on that market, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition on the basis of the transactions of traders, hinders the maintenance or development of competition and may effect trade between member states.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade, Ex parte Anderson Strathclyde Plc [1983] 2 All ER 233
1983
QBD
Commercial
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.
Fair Trading Act 1973
1 Cites
1 Citers
Hydrotherm Geratebau gmbh v Compact del Dott Ing Mario andreoli and c Sas [1984] ECR 2999; C-170/83; R-67/67; [1984] EUECJ R-67/67
12 Jul 1984
ECJ
European, Intellectual Property, Commercial
Europa In competition law, the term ' undertaking ' must be understood as designating an economic unit for the purposes of the subject-matter of the agreement in question even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal. Regulation nr 67/67 of the commission on the application of article 85 (3) of the treaty to categories of exclusive dealing agreements must be applied even if several legally independent undertakings participate in the agreement as one contracting party provided that those undertakings constitute an economic unit for the purposes of the agreement. In those circumstances competition between the persons participating together, as a single party, in the agreement in question is impossible.
Regulation no 67/67 is applicable where the obligations entered into cover not only a defined area of the common market but also countries outside the community.
Article 3 (b) (1) of regulation no 67/67 must be interpreted as excluding an agreement from block exemption only if it is clear from the actual terms of the agreement or from the conduct of the parties that they intend to use, or are in fact using, an industrial property right in such a way as to prevent or impede, with the aid of that right, parallel imports into the territory covered by the exclusive dealership. The fact that an agreement does not contain any provision to prevent abuse of an industrial property right is not in itself a sufficient reason for excluding that agreement from the application of regulation no 67/67.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
