Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
BASF and others v Commission T-79/89; [1992] EUECJ T-79/89
27 Feb 1992
ECFI

European, Commercial
Competition - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Procedure - Competence - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Non-existence of the measure.
[ Bailii ]
 
Solvay v Commission T-12/89; [1992] EUECJ T-12/89
10 Mar 1992
ECFI

Commercial
Competition - Concept of agreement and concerted practice - Collective responsibility.
[ Bailii ]
 
Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission T-24/92; [1992] EUECJ T-24/92R
8 May 1992
ECFI

European, Commercial
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission T-24/92; [1992] EUECJ T-24/92R
8 May 1992
ECFI

European, Commercial
Competition - Procedure for interim relief - Intervention - Confidentiality - Protective measures.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Automec SRL v Commission T-24/90; [1992] EUECJ T-24/90; [1992] ECR II-02223
18 Sep 1992
ECFI

European, Commercial
Europa Among the civil-law consequences which an infringement of the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty may have, only one is expressly provided for in Article 85(2), namely the nullity of the agreement. The other consequences attaching to an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty, such as the obligation to make good the damage caused to a third party or a possible obligation to enter into a contract are to be determined under national law. It is therefore the national courts which, where appropriate, may, in accordance with the rules of national law, order one trader to enter into a contract with another.
So far as the Commission is concerned, since freedom of contract must remain the rule, it cannot in principle be considered to have among the powers to issue orders which it has for the purpose of bringing to an end infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty ° the power to order an undertaking to enter into contractual relations, since in general it has appropriate means at its disposal for requiring an undertaking to terminate an infringement.
In particular, there cannot be held to be any justification for such a restriction on freedom of contract where there are several ways of bringing an infringement to an end. This is true of infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty arising from the application of a distribution system. Such infringements can also be eliminated by the abandonment or amendment of the distribution system. Consequently, the Commission undoubtedly has the power to find that an infringement exists and to order the undertakings concerned to bring it to an end, but it is not for the Commission to impose upon them its own choice from among all the various potential courses of action which are in conformity with the Treaty.
Where a complaint has been submitted to the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, it is not bound either to give a decision on the existence of the alleged infringement unless the subject-matter of the complaint falls within its exclusive purview, as in the case of the withdrawal of an exemption granted under Article 85(3) of the Treaty, or to conduct an investigation. Since the Commission has been entrusted with an extensive and general supervisory and regulatory task in the field of competition, it is consistent with its obligations under Community law for it to apply different degrees of priority to the cases submitted to it.
However, on the one hand, the procedural safeguards provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 17 and Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 oblige it to examine carefully the factual and legal particulars brought to its notice by the complainant in order to assess whether they disclose conduct of such a kind as to distort competition in the common market and affect trade between Member States and, on the other, every decision closing the file relating to a complaint must state reasons, so that the Community judicature is able to carry out a review of its legality.
The Commission is entitled to refer to the Community interest in order to determine the degree of priority to be applied to a case brought to its notice. In assessing the Community interest, it should take account of the facts of the case in question, and in particular of the legal and factual considerations which have been adduced. In particular, it should balance the significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the common market, the probability of establishing the existence of the infringement and the scope of the investigation required in order to fulfil, under the best possible conditions, its task of ensuring that Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty are complied with.
Where the Commission gives as its reason for closing, without taking action, the file on a complaint from an undertaking alleging infringement of the Community competition rules the fact that the complainant can assert his rights before the national courts, the Community court called on to review the legality of the decision closing the file should check whether the extent of the protection which national courts can provide in respect of the complainant' s rights under provisions of the Treaty was properly assessed by the Commission.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Generics and Harris Pharmaceuticals v Smith Kline and French Laboratories; ECJ 27-Oct-1992 - Times, 08 December 1992; [1992] ECR I-5335; C-191/90; [1992] EUECJ C-191/90

 
 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic v Greece; ECJ 16-Dec-1992 - C-210/91; [1992] EUECJ C-210/91
 
Criminal proceedings against Claeys [1992] ECR I-6559; C-114/91; [1992] EUECJ C-114/91
16 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Commercial
ECJ (Judgment) 1. A compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge, applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the burden borne by those products, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties prohibited by Article 12 of the Treaty. If those advantages only partly offset the burden borne by domestic products, such a charge constitutes discriminatory taxation within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty, the collection of which is prohibited as regards the proportion used to offset the burden borne by domestic products. 2. Articles 12, 13 and 95 of the Treaty have direct effect and create rights for individuals which the national courts must protect. 3. A compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge, applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the burden borne by those products, may, depending on how the revenue from it is used, constitute State aid incompatible with the common market if the conditions for the application of Article 92 of the Treaty are met, that being a matter for the Commission to determine in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 93 of the Treaty. In that respect, regard must be had to the jurisdiction of the national courts where, in introducing that charge, the Member State concerned failed to comply with its obligations under Article 93(3) of the Treaty, and where a Commission decision under Article 93(2) of the Treaty has found the levying of the charge as a method of financing State aid to be incompatible with the common market.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rochdale Borough Council v Stewart John Anders (Judgment) C-306/88; R-306/88; [1992] EUECJ R-306/88
16 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Commercial
Europa Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition which it lays down does not apply to national legislation prohibiting retailers from opening their premises on Sundays.
[ Bailii ]
 
Council of the City of Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich City Council v B and Q Plc (Rec 1992,p I-6635) (Judgment) [1992] EUECJ C-169/91
16 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Commercial
ECJ Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition which it lays down does not apply to national legislation prohibiting retailers from opening their premises on Sundays. Such legislation, which is not intended to regulate the flow of goods and affects the sale of both domestic and imported products, pursues an aim which is justified under Community law; it reflects certain choices relating to particular national or regional socio-cultural characteristics and it is for the Member States to make those choices in compliance with the requirements of Community law, in particular the principle of proportionality. As far as that principle is concerned, the restrictive effects on Community trade which might result from such rules would not appear to be excessive in relation to the aim pursued.
EEC Treaty 30
[ Bailii ]
 
Reading Borough Council v Payless DIY Ltd, Wickes Building Supplies Ltd, Great Mills (South) Ltd, Homebase Ltd, B and Q plc [1992] ECR I-6493; [1992] EUECJ C-304/90
16 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Commercial
ECJ Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition which it lays down does not apply to national legislation prohibiting retailers from opening their premises on Sundays. Any measure which is capable of directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, hindering intra-Community trade constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, prohibited between Member States by Article 30 of the Treaty. That definition covers obstacles to the free movement of goods which, in the absence of harmonization of legislation, are the consequence of applying to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods (such as those relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling, packaging). This is so even if those rules apply without distinction to all products unless their application can be justified by a public-interest objective taking precedence over the free movement of goods. By contrast, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder trade between Member States, within the meaning of that definition, so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. Such rules therefore fall outside of Article 30 of the Treaty. It follows that Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State imposing a general prohibition on resale at a loss.
EEC Treaty Art 30
[ Bailii ]
 
Wacker Werke GmbH and Co KG v Hauptzollamt Munchen-West [1992] EUECJ C-16/91
17 Dec 1992
ECJ

Commercial
ECJ Regulation No 2473/86 on outward processing relief arrangements and the standard exchange system is to be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the total or partial relief from import duty on the compensating products, the calculation of import duty theoretically payable on those products must in principle be based on their transaction value, while the value of the temporary export goods, which is required in order to determine the duty actually payable, must be calculated using one of the two methods set out in the second subparagraph of Article 13(2) of that regulation. If the value of the compensating products has been determined without any adjustment for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes, the value of the temporary export goods corresponds to the difference between the customs value of the compensating products and the processing costs determined by reasonable means, such as taking account of the transaction value of the temporary export goods.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cimenteries CBR SA, Blue Circle Industries plc, Syndicat Nationale des Fabricants de Ciments et de Chaux and Federation de l'Industrie Cimentiere asbl v Commission of the European Communities T-10/92; [1992] EUECJ T-10/92
18 Dec 1992
ECFI

Commercial
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.