Tag: Commercial

Trioplast Industrier v Commission: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

Competition – Agreements, Decisions and Concerted Practices Competition – Appeal – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in industrial plastic bags – Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed – Action for annulment and for damages

Citations:

C-364/16, [2017] EUECJ C-364/16P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.602117

Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd: Admn 14 Nov 2002

The Ombudsman had found that the applicant had unfairly failed to notify its customers of the availability of better accounts, once it discontinued accounts of one type. The Society appealed saying that the finding of unfairness arose from matters outside the scope of the Code.
Held: The finding did go outside the strict range of the Code. Nevertheless, the code was to be interpreted in a purposive, and non-technical way, and the Ombudsman had some considerable discretion. There were arguments each way as to the fairness or unfairness of the decision, but the court could only intervene if the decision was so bad as to be irrational. That was not the case here.

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2379 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Banking Code 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd HL 1993
One bus company took over another, giving it an effective monopoly within the region. The Commission considered that the area involved was sufficiently substantial to cause concern that it may operate against the public interest. At first instance . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, Ex Parte Save Our Railways and Others Etc CA 18-Dec-1995
A requirement that new services should be ‘based upon’ the present timetables did not mean that the services had to be at same level. It was possible that they may be a lesser service, though there should be no significant departures from such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Consumer, Commercial

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.178117

CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley and Co Ltd and Others: ChD 29 Nov 2016

Complaint of the alleged sale of an underlease at a low price, working as a corrupt agreement. It was said that one of the defendants, a local council, was liable for malicious prosecution of an enforcement notice. The Council’s replied that the tort ‘cannot apply in relation to the mere service of an enforcement notice’ because, as it is put in Clerk and Lindsell: ‘To prosecute is to set the law in motion and the law is only set in motion by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority in regard to the matter in question.’ The Council argued that the service of an enforcement notice involved no ‘appeal to some person clothed in judicial authority’
Held: Neey J said: ‘In my view, [Counsel for the Council] is right on this point. While it is now clear that the tort of malicious prosecution can apply without a criminal prosecution, there remains a requirement that the law has been ‘set in motion by an appeal to some person clothed with judicial authority’ and service of an enforcement notice cannot, as it seems to me, suffice for this purpose. I do not see Churchill v Siggers as providing authority to the contrary.’

Judges:

Newey J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3048 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – CXZ v ZXC QBD 26-Jun-2020
Malicious Prosecution needs court involvement
W had made false allegations against her husband of child sex abuse to police. He sued in malicious prosecution. She applied to strike out, and he replied saying that as a developing area of law a strike out was inappropriate.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Negligence, Commercial

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.571982

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia v Adelaide Steamship Company: PC 1913

There was an agreement between a group of colliery owners and a group of shipowners which was ancillary to an agreement between the colliery owners themselves. Each agreement was in restraint of trade.
Held: Lord Parker explained the doctrine of restraint of trade: ‘Monopolies and contracts in restraint of trade have this in common, that they both, if enforced, involve a derogation from the common law right in virtue of which any member of the community may exercise any trade or business he pleases and in such manner as he thinks best in his own interests.’
and ‘Contracts in restraint of trade were subject to somewhat different considerations. There is little doubt that the common law in the earlier stages of its growth treated all such contracts as contracts of imperfect obligation, if not void for all purposes; they were said to be against public policy in the sense that it was deemed impolitic to enforce them.’
and ‘It is only necessary to add that no contract was ever an offence at common law merely because it was in restraint of trade. The parties to such a contract, even if unenforceable, were always at liberty to act on it in the manner agreed. Similarly combinations, not amounting to contracts, in restraint of trade were never unlawful at common law. To make any such contract or combination unlawful it must amount to a criminal conspiracy, and the essence of a criminal conspiracy is a contract or combination to do something unlawful, or something lawful by unlawful means. The right of the individual to carry on his trade or business in the manner he considers best in his own interests involves the right of combining with others in a common course of action, provided such common course of action is undertaken with a single view to the interests of the combining parties and not with a view to injure others.’

Judges:

Lord Parker

Citations:

[1913] AC 781

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Cited – Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow and Co HL 18-Dec-1891
An association of shipowners agreed to use various lawful means to dissuade customers from shipping their goods by the Mogul line.
Held: The agreement was lawful in the sense that it gave the Mogul Company no right to sue them. But (majority) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd HL 1968
Agreement in Restraint of Trade Unenforceable
The defendant ran two garages under solus agreements with the plaintiffs who complained when the defendants began to purchase petrol from cheaper alternative sources. The House was asked whether the solus agreements were be regarded in law as an . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.259685

Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (Competition): ECJ 15 May 2008

EU (Opinion) Appeal Competition Article 81 EC Cartel Sodium gluconate market Regulation No 17 Fines Guidelines on the method of setting fines Statement of reasons demonstrating the need to increase the level of fines EEA-wide product turnover Principle of equal treatment Determination of market impact Burden of pleading and proving the facts Duration of the infringement and termination of the cartel Attenuating circumstances.

Citations:

C-510/06, [2008] EUECJ C-510/06 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (Competition) ECJ 19-Mar-2009
Appeal – Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sodium gluconate market – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Community competition policy – Equal treatment – Turnover to be taken into account – Attenuating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.267958

European Commission v Tomkins Plc: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

Citations:

C-286/11, [2012] EUECJ C-286/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – European Commission v Tomkins Plc 22-Jan-2013
Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European market for copper and copper alloy fittings – Liability of the parent company stemming solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary – Principle of ‘ne ultra petita’ – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463837

Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission: ECFI 5 Jun 2012

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Methacrylates market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Participation in a part of the cartel – Rights of the defence – Fines – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Gravity of the infringement – Deterrent effect – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Principle of sound administration – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Duration of procedure – Reasonable time

Judges:

Czucz P

Citations:

T-214/06, [2012] EUECJ T-214/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460218

Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission ex parte National House Building Council: CA 20 Jan 1994

There must be established a causal link between an alleged monopolistic practice and the resulting action, before the one can be attributed to the other under the Act.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-1994, Independent 20-Jan-1994

Statutes:

Fair Trading Act 1973 48(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Commercial

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87375

In Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2): CA 8 Jul 1993

An employer was not liable for its employee’s action in contempt of court against the company’s clear instructions with regard to anti-competitive agreements.

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-1993, Independent 14-Jul-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Director General of Fair Trading v Smiths Concrete: re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete 1992
For a person to be found in contempt of a court order it is necessary to show that that he knew of the relevant order and with that knowledge he intended to do the act which amounted to a breach of the court order. It is not necessary to show that . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) HL 25-Nov-1994
The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Contempt of Court, Commercial

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.82208

Department of Trade and Industry v Cedenio: QBD 22 Mar 2001

The provisions of the Act which required the owner of a business to be identified, were satisfied by the owner of the business signing his name on correspondence. The Act could not be read so as to require the addition of some phrase such as ‘trading as’ Similarly there was no requirement to add an explicit statement that a particular address was an address for service.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Business Names Act 1985 4(1) 4(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.79912

The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd: ChD 16 Nov 2017

The Authority had obtained and executed a search warrant against the defendant’s premises, but now sought to restrain disclosure of the materials upon which it had obtained that warrant, asserting Public Interest Immunity.
Held: An application to vary or revoke the warrant must be at an inter partes rehearing. At that rehearing eh court must rely only upon evidence disclosed to the other side, save that the authority would have liberty to submit an affidavit setting out the gist of any material redacted on public interest immunity grounds before determination of the application.
Marcus Smith J: ‘(i) rejected a submission that, if the CMA was to be permitted to resist the challenge, it must disclose the full material;
(ii) considered that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Al Rawi precluded a ‘closed material procedure’, whereby the material withheld could be seen by the court, but not by Concordia;
(iii) rejected the CMA’s case that some form of confidentiality ring could be established, to allow disclosure to Concordia’s counsel, without disclosure to Concordia; and
(iv) in these circumstances held that ‘Concordia’s application to vary or partially revoke the warrant must be determined on the basis of such material as is not protected by public interest immunity’

Judges:

Marcus Smith J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2911 (Ch), [2018] Bus LR 367, [2017] WLR(D) 772

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 281(1), Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, Competition Act 1998 and Other Enactments (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd CA 7-Aug-2018
The Authority had obtained a search warrant on an ex parte application. The defendant sought a rehearing, but the Authority sought to rely upon material for which it now asserted public interest immunity in material already used. At first instance, . .
See Also – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 8-Nov-2018
Whether to appoint special advocate. The Authority wished to pursue an investigation relying upon material for which it asserted Public Interest Immunity. . .
See Also – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
See Also – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.599632

Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola v Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH and Co KG: ECJ 4 Mar 1999

Upon the registration of a PDO (‘protected designation of origin’) national rules ceased to apply and ‘only the legal rules laid down in the Regulation are, together with the Treaty rules, relevant for the purpose of answering the questions referred about the scope of the protection of the PDO. The protection of the PDO is now guaranteed by Community law.

Citations:

C-87/97, [1999] ECR I-1301

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.162066

Editions Jacob v Commission T-471/11: ECFI 24 Nov 2011

(Competition) Merits – Competition – Concentration of undertakings – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to retrocession of assets – Annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the Commission’s approval of the purchaser of the assets retroceded – Application for suspension of operation of the decision on the new approval of the same purchaser – Emergency defect – Balancing of interests

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-471/11

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Order – Editions Jacob v Commission T-471/11 ECJ 5-Sep-2014
ECJ Competition – Concentrations – Book publishing market – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to retrocession of assets – Decision approving the acquirer of the assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449359

Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission: ECFI 29 Jul 2011

ECFI (Competition) Interim measures – Competition – Enquiry – Article 18, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1 / 2003 – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency.

Citations:

T-296/11, [2011] EUECJ T-296/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission 14-Mar-2014
Competition – Administrative procedure – Request for information decision – Necessary nature of the information requested – Significantly serious evidence – Judicial review – Proportionality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444080

Mediaset v Commission (State Aid): ECJ 28 Jul 2011

ECJ Appeal – Subsidies granted by the Italian Republic to promote the purchase of digital decoders – Non-inclusion of decoders for the reception solely of television programmes broadcast by satellite – Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market.

Citations:

C-403/10, [2011] EUECJ C-403/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442296

Emme v Commission: ECFI 12 Jul 2011

(Competition) Application for interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of operation – Financial loss – Absence of exceptional circumstances – Lack of urgency

Citations:

T-422/10, [2011] EUECJ T-422/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442283

Thyssenkrupp Liften Ascenseurs v Commission T-147/07: ECFI 13 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Handling bids – Distribution markets – Price Fixing.

Citations:

T-147/07, [2011] EUECJ T-147/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441807

Fuji Electric v Commission: ECFI 12 Jul 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Proof of the infringement – Whether liable for the infringement – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-132/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441781

Kier Group Plc, Kier Regional Ltd v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 11 Mar 2011

The CAT set ot the decision of the respondent: ‘1 On 21 September 2009 the Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’) published a decision under the Competition Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) entitled ‘Bid rigging in the construction industry in England’ (‘the Decision’). The Decision is the longest decision ever adopted by the OFT, running to nearly 2,000 pages. It followed an extensive investigation which took place over some five and a half years between April 2004 and September 2009 which was by far the largest undertaken by the OFT, in terms of the number of parties involved, the number of inspections made and the number of suspected infringements.
2 In the Decision the OFT found that, in the period 2000 to 2006, 103 undertakings had each committed between one and three infringements of the prohibition contained in section 2 of the 1998 Act (‘the Chapter I Prohibition’). That prohibition applies to agreements or concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom.
3 By far the majority of those infringements consisted of what can perhaps be referred to as ‘simple’ cover pricing, to distinguish them from the six infringements described at paragraph 21 below. ‘Simple’ cover pricing occurs where one of those invited to tender for a construction contract (Company A) does not wish to win the contract, but does not want to indicate its lack of interest to the client, for whose work it may wish to be invited to tender in the future. Company A therefore seeks a cover price from another company which is tendering for that contract (Company B). Company B will be seeking to win the contract and will have reached a view as to its own tender price. Indeed it may already have submitted its own tender to the client. The cover price which it provides to Company A will be at a level sufficiently high to ensure that Company A does not win. This price is submitted to the client by Company A as though it is a genuine tender. It should be noted that Company B does not reveal its own tender price to Company A – the cover price is an inflated price.
4 The OFT imposed penalties totalling approximately andpound;129.2m in respect of 199 infringements.’

Citations:

[2011] CAT 3

Links:

Bailii

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441647

Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Others: CAT 25 May 2011

Judges:

Marcus Smith QC, Mrs Margot Daly and Mr Dermot Glynn

Citations:

[2011] CAT 16, [2011] Comp AR 569

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal From – Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Others CA 31-Jul-2012
The respondent company (MC) had disclosed to the European Commission its own historical involvement in unlawful price-fixing cartels. Other members, but not MC received fines. The claimants (DB) sought damages for their losses arising from the . .
At CAT – Deutsche 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441655

Solvay Solexis v Commission: ECFI 16 Jun 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements – Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Meaning of’accord ‘and’ concerted practice ‘- Access to the file – Fines – Equal treatment – Leniency Notice – Duty to state reasons.

Citations:

T-195/06, [2011] EUECJ T-195/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441192

Solvay v Commission T-186/06: ECFI 16 Jun 2011

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ – Access to the file – Fines – Leniency Notice – Equal treatment – Legitimate expectations – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-186/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441193

Proas v Commission: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

(Judgment) Appeal – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 81 EC – Spanish market for penetration bitumen – Market sharing and price coordination – Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union – Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission – Appeal on the cost

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:415, [2016] EUECJ C-616/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.565630

European Night Services v Commission T-388/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities – Statement of reasons – Admissibility.

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-388/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433444

European Night Services v Commission T-375/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities’ – Statement of reasons – Admissibility.

Citations:

T-375/94, [1998] EUECJ T-375/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433442

Solvay v Commission C-109/10: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Appeals – Competition – Abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC) – Fidelity rebate – Discrimination against business partners – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Loss of documents in the administrative procedure – Right to a hearing – Prohibition on the use of evidence (Article 20(1) of Regulation No 17) – Right to have a matter adjudicated upon within a reasonable time – Excessive length of the proceedings – European market for soda ash.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-109/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Solvay v Commission C-109/10 ECJ 25-Oct-2011
Appeal – Competition – Market in soda ash in the Community – Abuse of dominant position – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Hearing of the undertaking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433407

Solvay v Commission C-110/10: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Appeal – Competition – Agreements (Article 81 EC) – Rights of the defense – Right of access to the file – Loss of information in the file – Right to be Heard – Principle of reasonable time – Excessive length of proceedings – European Markets soda.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-110/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Solvay v Commission C-110/10 ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ Appeal – Competition – Market in soda ash in the Community – Concerted practice – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Hearing of the undertaking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433408

Council v Interpipe Niko Tube And Interpipe Ntrp C-200/09: ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Appeal – Common commercial policy – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Articles 2(10), 3(2), 18(3) and 19(3) – Comparison of the normal value and the export price – Adjustment – Rights of the defence – Imports of certain seamless tubes and pipes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine – Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 – Cooperation by the European Union industry – Use of confidential information.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-200/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433387

Viega v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Cartels – Sector copper fittings and copper alloy – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Participation in the infringement – Obligation to state reasons – Fines – Turnover relevant – Extenuating Circumstances.

Citations:

T-375/06, [2011] EUECJ T-375/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431366

Fra.Bo v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Leniency Notice – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Attenuating circumstances – Immunity from fines – Legitimate expectations – Equal treatment.

Citations:

T-381/06, [2011] EUECJ T-381/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431352

IBP And International Building Products France v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of participation in the infringement – Fines – Aggravating circumstances.

Citations:

T-384/06, [2011] EUECJ T-384/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431355

Comap v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of participation in the infringement – Fines – Determination of the starting amount of the fine – Proportionality.

Citations:

T-377/06, [2011] EUECJ T-377/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431340

IMI And Others v Commission: ECFI 24 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Relevant turnover – Leniency Notice – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Equal treatment.

Citations:

T-378/06, [2011] EUECJ T-378/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431356

Areva and Others v Commission T-121/07: ECFI 3 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Rights of the defence – Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Whether answerable for the infringement – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Joint and several liability for payment of a fine – Aggravating circumstances – Role of leader – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-121/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430327

Siemens and Va Tech Transmission and Distribution v Commission T-124/07: ECFI 3 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Effects within the common market – Notion of continuous infringement – Duration of the infringement – Limitation period – Fines – Proportionality – Ceiling of 10% of turnover – Joint and several liability for payment of a fine – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation – Rights of the defence.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-124/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430345

Siemens and Va Tech Transmission and Distribution v Commission T-122/07: ECFI 3 Mar 2011

ECFI Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market-sharing – Effects within the common market – Notion of continuous infringement – Duration of the infringement – Limitation period – Fines – Proportionality – Ceiling of 10% of turnover – Joint and several liability for payment of a fine – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation – Rights of the defence.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ T-122/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430343

Elf Aquitaine v Commission: ECJ 17 Feb 2011

ECJ (Competition) Appeal – Cartels – European monochloroacetic acid – Rules relating to the accountability of anticompetitive practices of a subsidiary to its parent – the presumption of innocence and personality of penalties – Defence rights – Duty motivation.

Citations:

C-521/09, [2011] EUECJ C-521/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Elf Aquitaine v Commission ECJ 29-Sep-2011
ECJ Appeal – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement – Monochloroacetic acid market – Rules on the imputability of anti-competitive practices by a subsidiary to . .
See Also – Elf Aquitaine v Commission ECJ 1-Oct-2013
Taxation of costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430205

KME Germany and Others v Commission: ECJ 10 Feb 2011

ECJ Appeal – Competition – Price-fixing and market-sharing cartel – Factors taken into account in fixing fines – Scope of jurisdiction of the General Court – Effective judicial review.

Citations:

C-272/09, [2011] EUECJ C-272/09 – O, [2011] EUECJ C-272/09 – P – O, [2011] EUECJ C-272/09 – P

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430212

E.On Energie v Commission (Competition): ECFI 15 Dec 2010

ECFI Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision finding a broken seal – Article 23, paragraph 1 e) of Regulation (EC) No 1 / 2003 – Burden of proof – Presumption of innocence – Proportionality – Obligation to state reasons.

Citations:

T-141/08, [2010] EUECJ T-141/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427692

Servaas Inc v Rafidain Bank and Others: ChD 14 Dec 2010

Application for third party debt order.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3287 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Servaas Incorporated v Rafidain Bank and Others ComC 14-Dec-2010
The claimant had supplied a factory to Iraq, but remained unpaid. Assets had been frozen in the respondent Iraqi bank, and with the new government, the liquidators were to pay assets to a fund who were, in turn to discharge debts pro rata. The . .
At Administrative Court – SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidian Bank and Others SC 17-Aug-2012
The appellant had contracted to construct a factory in Iraq. On the imposition of sanctions, the respondent bank’s assets were frozen. The appellant sought to recover the sums due to it, and obtained judgment in France. After the fall of Hussain, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, International, Commercial

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427407

Confederation europeenne des associations d’horlogers-reparateurs (CEAHR) v Commission (Competition): ECFI 15 Dec 2010

ECFI Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Abuse of dominant position – Refusal of Swiss watch producers to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers – Community interest – Relevant market – Primary market and after market – Duty to give reasons – Manifest error of assessment.

Citations:

T-427/08, [2010] EUECJ T-427/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427315

Enterprise Inns Plc v The Forest Hill Tavern Public House Ltd and Others: ChD 21 Oct 2010

The defendants, tied tenants of the claimant, sought to defend applications for forfeiture of their leases saying that the claimant’s terms and beer prices were not set in good faith at reasonably competitive levels.

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2368 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425382

Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission (Competition): ECFI 13 Sep 2010

ECFI Competition – Cartels – industrial plastic bags – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Gravity of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Proportionality.

Citations:

T-26/06, [2010] EUECJ T-26/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424197

Editions Jacob v Commission: ECFI 13 Sep 2010

ECFI Competition – Concentrations – Edition Francophone – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market provided that repayments of assets – Action for annulment of a prospective buyer not made – obligation to state reasons – Fraud – Error of law – Manifest error of assessment – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.

Citations:

T-279/04, [2010] EUECJ T-279/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424168

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Isaac International: ECJ 29 Jul 2010

ECJ Commercial Policy – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Customs Code – Article 212a – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 292 – Regulation (EEC) No 88/97 – Article 14 – Anti-dumping duty – Bicycle frames.

Citations:

C-371/09, [2010] EUECJ C-371/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421313

France v Commission T-444/04: ECFI 21 May 2010

ECJ State aid – Financial measures for France Telecom – Project shareholder loan – Public statements by a member of the French government – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Concept of State aid – Advantage Resources – State – Obligation to state reasons.

Citations:

T-444/04, [2010] EUECJ T-444/04, [2019] EUECJ T-444/04RENV-DEP_CO

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416423

France v Commission (State Aid) French Text: ECFI 21 May 2010

ECJ State aid – Financial measures for France Telecom – Project shareholder loan – Public statements by a member of the French government – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Concept of State aid – Advantage Resources – State – Obligation to state reasons.

Citations:

T-450/04, [2010] EUECJ T-450/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416424

France v Commission – T-425/04: ECFI 21 May 2010

ECJ State aid – Financial measures for France Telecom – Project shareholder loan – Public statements by a member of the French government – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Concept of State aid – Advantage Resources – State – Obligation to state reasons.

Citations:

T-425/04, [2010] EUECJ T-425/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – France v Commission – T-425/04 ECJ 2-Jul-2015
ECJ State aid – Financial measures in favor of France Telecom – Offer for shareholder advance – State declarations by the French State – Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market – No extension . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416422

Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution: ChD 23 Apr 2010

The defendant had developed a draft standard for automotive body repairs. It included a requirement that any replacement parts must be either the manufacturer’s own or certified under a recognised conformity certification scheme. The claimant imported so-called ‘replica parts’ and said that the costs of such a scheme would be so disproportionate as to destroy their business. It said that this might be appropriate for safety related parts, but the defendant’s definition of such was too wide, and the scheme was in breach of the 1988 Act. The defendant asked that the claim be struck out.
Held: The court could not conclude that repairers would not feel bound by the standard so as to infringe the claimant’s rights. Limited parts of the particulars were struck out, but the rest should proceed. The court considered the guidelines in Santolino adding that for ‘competition law claims (or defences), that where the area of law is in the course of development the court should be cautious ‘to assume that it is beyond argument with real prospect of success that the existing case law will not be extended or modified’ so as to encompass the basis of argument advanced.’
The issue depends upon a careful analysis of the specific allegation and the facts then relied upon. The essence of Article 101, as applied to horizontal agreements, is to prohibit the substitution of co-ordinated action between competitors for the independent policy that each would otherwise pursue.

Judges:

Roth J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 854 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
Cited – Bayer AG v Commission (Rec 2000,p II-3383) ECFI 26-Oct-2000
The Commission had found that Bayer’s policy of restricting parallel imports of its pharmaceutical drug, ADALAT, constituted part of its dealership agreements, and had annuled them.
Held: Although Bayer clearly intended to restrict parallel . .
Cited – Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc and others ChD 14-Jun-2002
The claimant sought damages for patent infringement. The respondent asserted that the refusal to licence the patent amounted to an abuse of its dominant position. Complaint had also been brought in the US.
Held: The licence offered by Intel . .
Cited – Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc, Elitegroup Computer Systems (UK) Ltd Via Technologies Inc , Via Technologies (Europe) Ltd, Realtime Distribution Ltd CA 20-Dec-2002
Infringement of patents.
Held: With regard in particular to competition law claims (or defences), where the area of law is in the course of development the court should be cautious ‘to assume that it is beyond argument with real prospect of . .
Cited – Bundesverband Der Arzneimittel-Importeure v Bayer And Commission ECJ 6-Jan-2004
EU (Competition) Appeals – Competition – Parallel imports – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Meaning of agreement between undertakings – Proof of the existence of an agreement – Market in . .
Cited – Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV and Commission of the European Communities v Bayer AG ECJ 6-Jan-2004
Europa Appeals – Competition – Parallel imports – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Meaning of agreement between undertakings – Proof of the existence of an agreement – Market in . .
Cited – BHB Enterprises Plc v Victor Chandler (International) Ltd ChD 27-May-2005
The claimant created a very substantial computerised database about horses and the racing industry. It licensed the database to users, including some who were able to grant sub-licenses. It sought to rely on the Database Directive to support its . .
Cited – Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd and Others v The Bolton Pharmaceutical Company 100 Ltd CA 26-May-2006
Appeals were made against interlocutory injunctions for alleged trade mark infringement.
Held: The court should hesitate about making a final decision for summary judgment without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the . .
Cited – Unipart Group Ltd v O2 (UK) Ltd and Another CA 30-Jul-2004
The court considered the applicability of Article 81 in Chapter 1 of Part III of the EC Treaty to allegedly anti-competitive conduct in the market for the wholesale supply of airtime for mobile telephones. Unipart, an independent service provider . .
Cited – General Motors Nederland and Opel Nederland v Commission (Judgment) ECFI 21-Oct-2003
Europa Agreements between Opel’s national sales company in Holland and its authorised dealers were challenged as infringing competition law. The Commission had found that the agreements incorporated Opel’s policy . .
Cited – Suiker Unie and Others v Commission ECJ 16-Dec-1975
. .
Cited – AC-Treuhand v Commission (Competition) ECFI 8-Jul-2008
Europa Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Organic peroxides – Fines – Article 81 EC – Rights of the defence – Right to a fair hearing – Meaning of perpetrator of an infringement – . .

Cited by:

Cited – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports ChD 24-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to renew its leases of docking facilities from the landlord defendant. The defendant resisted saying it intended to operate its own business, and the claimant now alleged that the defendant was abusing its dominant position to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, European

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408671

BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and Others: CA 12 Nov 2010

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ VP, Lloyd LJ, Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1258, [2011] Bus LR 428, [2011] CP Rep 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and others CAT 25-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages after the defendants had been found to be part of an unlawful price maintenance cartel. The respondent argued that the claim was out of time.
Held: The claim could proceed. . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd v Basf Se CAT 17-Oct-2008
The Tribunal unanimously decided that ‘the relevant date’ under rule 31(2) of the Tribunal Rules for the purposes of the Claimants’ claim fell on the expiry of the period during which an appeal against the relevant judgment of the CFI could have . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se and Others CA 22-May-2009
The claimant sought to bring an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of competition rules by the defendant. The defendant argued that the claim was out of time being outside the two year period required.
Held: The respondent’s . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others Basf Se (Formerly Basf Ag) and Others CAT 19-Nov-2009
The claimants wished to claim damages arising from the participation by the defendants in an unlawful cartel. The Court of Appeal had said that the claim was out of time, and that the claimants would have to seek an extension of time to bring their . .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se (Formerly BASF Ag) and Others CAT 12-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.425946

Safeway Stores Ltd and Others v Twigger and Others: ComC 15 Jan 2010

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 11 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 2(1)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Safeway Stores Ltd and Others v Twigger and Others CA 21-Dec-2010
The court was asked whether, when a company had been fined for anti-competitive practices, the company could then recover the penalties from the directors and senior employees involved.
Held: The undertaking was not entitled to recover the . .
Cited – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392914

Solvay v Commission T-58/01: ECFI 17 Dec 2009

ECJ Competition – Agreements – Soda ash market in the Community – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC Agreement guaranteeing to an undertaking a minimum tonnage of sales in a Member State and the purchase of the quantities necessary to attain that minimum tonnage – Commission to impose fines or penalties – Reasonable time – Substantial forms – Appropriation of trade between Member States – Right of access to the file – Fine – Gravity and duration of the infringement Aggravating and mitigating circumstance

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ T-58/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384501

Solvay v Commission T-57/01: ECFI 17 Dec 2009

ECJ Competition – Abuse of a dominant position Soda market in the Community (with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland) Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC Supply agreements for an excessively long period Loyalty discount Limitation of the Commission’s power to impose fines or penalties Reasonable time Substantial forms Relevant geographic market Existence of dominant position Abuse of dominant position Right of access to the file Fine Severity and duration of the infringement Aggravating circumstances Recurrence Circumstances Attenuating

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ T-57/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384500

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd: CA 7 Aug 2018

The Authority had obtained a search warrant on an ex parte application. The defendant sought a rehearing, but the Authority sought to rely upon material for which it now asserted public interest immunity in material already used. At first instance, the court said that the Authority could only use such material by way of a generalised summary. The Authority appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It had been correct when making the ex parte application to use material which might later be subject to a PII application, without identifying it as such. On an inter partes application as to that warrant, application could made for a PII certificate, but the court should not get involved in the use of confidentiality rings.

Judges:

King, Simon LJJ, Dame Elizabeth Gloster

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1881, [2018] WLR(D) 516, [2018] Bus LR 2452

Links:

Bailii, wLRD

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, Competition Act 1998 and Other Enactments (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Nov-2017
The Authority had obtained and executed a search warrant against the defendant’s premises, but now sought to restrain disclosure of the materials upon which it had obtained that warrant, asserting Public Interest Immunity.
Held: An application . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .

Cited by:

See Also – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 8-Nov-2018
Whether to appoint special advocate. The Authority wished to pursue an investigation relying upon material for which it asserted Public Interest Immunity. . .
See Also – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
See Also – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.621036

Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission: ECJ 29 Oct 2009

ECJ (Commercial Policy) Appeals – Dumping – Damage allegedly suffered following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes – Conditions for engagement of the non-contractual liability of the Community.

Citations:

C-419/08, [2009] EUECJ C-419/08 – O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380309

Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission: ECFI 6 May 2009

ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for copper industrial tubes Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Fines – Size of the market concerned Aggravating circumstances – Repeat infringement

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ T-122/04

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342056

Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission (Competition) C-338/07: ECJ 2 Apr 2009

Opinion – Appeals Agreements Carbonless paper market Article 81 EC Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the decision Infringement of the rights of the defense Consequences Reasonable length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance Distortion of the evidence Participation in the infringement Duration of the infringement Infringement Regulation No 17 Article 15 (2) Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of fines Principle of proportionality Principle of equal treatment Duty to state reasons

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-338/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission (Competition) C-338/07 ECJ 3-Sep-2009
Appeals Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Carbonless paper Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision Infringement of the rights of the defence Consequences Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342041

T-Mobile Netherlands and Others: ECJ 19 Feb 2009

Europa Competition Article 81(1) EC Concerted practices Practice having the object of prevention, restriction or distortion of competition Criteria for assessing the object of a practice Only an isolated concerted action Causal link between concertation and market conduct of the participating undertakings Burden of proof Presumption of a causal link.

Citations:

C-8/08, [2009] EUECJ C-8/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – T-Mobile Netherlands and Others ECJ 4-Jun-2009
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling Article 81(1) EC Concept of ‘concerted practice’ Causal connection between concerted action and the market conduct of undertakings Appraisal in accordance with the rules of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.312006

Schenker C-93/08: ECJ 12 Feb 2009

ECJ (Commercial Policy) Reference for a preliminary ruling Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 Article 11 Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction Prior determination whether an intellectual property right has been infringed Administrative penalty.

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-93/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.286166

Commission v Schneider Electric: ECJ 3 Feb 2009

(Competition) Appeal Operations in respect of undertakings Market in the distribution of electricity – Damage resulting from the Commission’s conduct in assessing the concentration Conditions for the non-contractual liability of the Community

Citations:

C-440/07, [2009] EUECJ C-440/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Commission v Schneider Electric ECJ 16-Jul-2009
ECJ Grand Chamber – Appeal Concentrations Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Commission decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market Annulment Non contractual liability of the Community on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Utilities

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.286156

Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others (No 2): ChD 6 Nov 2008

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2688 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others ChD 8-Aug-2008
Various racecourses had combined together to sell the rights to televise their races to bookmakers. The bookmakers complained that the combination was anti-competitive and in breach of European law. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Commercial, European

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277736

Kanal 5 and TV 4 v Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra: ECJ 11 Sep 2008

ECJ (Competition) Article 82 EC Dominant position Abuse Collective copyright management body De facto monopoly Television broadcasting Method of calculation of remuneration

Citations:

C-52/07, [2008] EUECJ C-52/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Order – Kanal 5 and TV 4 v Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra ECJ 11-Dec-2008
ECJ Competition – Copyright – Copyright management organisation enjoying a de facto monopoly – Collection of royalties relating to the broadcast of musical works – Method of calculating those royalties – Dominant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276382

Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others: ChD 8 Aug 2008

Various racecourses had combined together to sell the rights to televise their races to bookmakers. The bookmakers complained that the combination was anti-competitive and in breach of European law.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1978 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998, EC Treaty 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd and others v Amalgamated Racing Ltd and others (No 2) ChD 6-Nov-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Intellectual Property, European, Commercial

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272305