Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd: ECJ 14 Dec 2000

Masterfoods Ltd, a subsidiary of Mars Inc, brought proceedings in Ireland against HB Ice Cream Ltd, a subsidiary of Unilever, for a declaration that its agreements to provide retailers with freezer cabinets on terms that they stocked only HB ice cream contravened articles 81 and 82. On 28 May 1992 the High Court dismissed the action and, on HB’s counterclaim, granted an injunction to restrain Masterfoods from inducing retailers to break their agreements by stocking Masterfoods ice cream. Masterfoods complained to the Commission, who in due course appeared to gicve conflicting opinions. The Supreme Court of Ireland referred questions as to what the duty of sincere co-operation required of it in the circumstances.
Held: Domestic courts must therefore accept a Commission decision that a prohibited agreement or practice exists. Despite the fact that the Irish proceedings were concerned with HB’s distribution arrangements prior to 1992 whereas the Commission’s decision was concerned with the altered distribution arrangements, the duty of sincere co-operation required the Supreme Court to stay its own proceedings pending final judgment in the action for annulment (unless it considered a reference on the validity of the Commission decision was warranted). When a national court has to make decision on an agreement whose compatibility with the EC Treaty had already been considered by the Commission, and there is a conflict between a decision of its own courts, and that decision of the Commission of the European Communities, it had to follow the decision of the Commission.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001, C-344/98, [2001] 4 CMLR 14, [2000] ECR 1-11369, [2000] EUECJ C-344/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 81(1) 82

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedCrehan 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 . .
CitedInntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
CitedDevenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Sa (France) and others CA 14-Oct-2008
The defendant had been involved in price fixing arrangements, and the claimant sought damages for breach of its proprietary rights. The claimant appealed refusal of an award an account of profits for what was akin to a breach of statutory duty.
CitedDeutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
CitedMicula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.162491