Tag: Commercial

PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, Regina (on The Application of) v Her Majesty’s Treasury and Others: ECJ 28 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment : Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – Restrictive Measures) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Provisions of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Validity – Jurisdiction of the Court – EU-Russia Partnership Agreement – Obligation to state reasons – Principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa – Access to capital markets – Financial assistance – Global Depositary Receipts – Oil sector – Request for interpretation of concepts of ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ – Inadmissibility

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:236, [2017] EUECJ C-72/15, [2017] WLR(D) 214, [2017] 3 WLR 1031, [2018] QB 1

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, International

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.581155

Asociacion Profesional De Empresas De Reparto Y Manipulado De Correspondencia v Administracion General del Estado: ECJ 18 Dec 2007

ECJ (Freedom To Provide Services) – Public procurement Liberalisation of postal services Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC’ Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts.

Citations:

[2007] ECR I-12175, [2007] EUECJ C-220/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Brent London Borough Council and Others v Risk Management Partners Ltd SC 9-Feb-2011
The council had put out to tender its insurance requirements. The respondent submitted its bid. The council then withdrew the tender in order to take up membership of a mutual company providing such services created by local authorities in London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Administrative

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262902

Bollore Sa v Commission: ECJ 26 Apr 2007

Ecj (Competition) – Competition Cartels – Carbonless paper Guidelines on the method of setting fines Duration of the infringement Gravity of the infringement Increase for deterrence Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances Leniency Notice.

Judges:

M. Vilaras, P

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ T-109/02, [2008] ECR II-947

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251861

Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 20 Nov 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 14-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 17-Feb-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249553

Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 17 Feb 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 14-Oct-2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 20-Nov-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245504

Celesio Ag v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 8 Sep 2006

Citations:

[2006] CAT 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245508

Endesa v Commission: ECFI 14 Jul 2006

ECJ Competition – Concentrations – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Electricity market – Decision declaring that a concentration lacks a Community dimension – Calculation of turnover – Accounting standards – Adjustments – Burden of proof – Rights of the defence

Citations:

T-417/05, [2006] EUECJ T-417/05

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243282

Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications: CAT 13 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] CAT 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications -[2005] CAT 14 CAT 27-May-2005
. .
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Jul-2005
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235354

Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading: CAT 14 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] CAT 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 17-Feb-2006
. .
See Also – Claymore Dairies Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 20-Nov-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231362

Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications: CAT 20 Jul 2005

Citations:

[2005] CAT 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications -[2005] CAT 14 CAT 27-May-2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230161

Alliance For Natural Health and Another, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary Of State For Health and Anor (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 12 Jul 2005

ECJ Approximation of laws – Food supplements – Directive 2002/46/EC – Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive – Validity – Legal basis – Article 95 EC – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 – Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment – Right to property – Freedom to pursue an economic activity – Obligation to state reasons).
The applicants complained that the Directive on food supplements was unlawful or invalid.
Held: The object of the directive was to ensure uniformity, and as that was itself a proper aim insofar as the contrary would work against the free movement of products within the EEC. Given the need for public safety, it was proportionate to limit the free trade in food supplements to those for which there was sufficient data for a favourable opinion to be given.
As to EU measures establishing authorisation procedures, for example for the use of particular substances, the court will require that the procedures reflect principles of sound administration and legal certainty: ‘Such a procedure must be accessible in the sense that it must be expressly mentioned in a measure of general application which is binding on the authorities concerned. It must be capable of being completed within a reasonable time. An application to have a substance included on a list of authorised substances may be refused by the competent authorities only on the basis of a full assessment of the risk posed to public health by the substance, established on the basis of the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research. If the procedure results in a refusal, the refusal must be open to challenge before the courts.’

Citations:

C-154/04, [2005] EUECJ C-154/04, C-155/04, [2005] EUECJ C-155/04, Times 15-Jul-2005

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 3285/94

Cited by:

Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228447

Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-207/02: ECJ 28 Jun 2005

(Competition)

Citations:

C-207/02, [2005] EUECJ C-207/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-206/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .

Cited by:

See also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission (Competition) ECJ 28-Jun-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227966

Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-206/02: ECJ 28 Jun 2005

(Competition)

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-206/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-207/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-213/02 ECFI 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227965

Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-213/02: ECFI 28 Jun 2005

(Competition)

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-213/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-206/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
See Also – Dansk Rorindustri v Commission C-189/02 ECJ 28-Jun-2005
(Competition) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227968

HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-299/03: ECJ 9 Jun 2005

ECJ (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import – Marketing authorisation.

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-318/03, C-211/03, C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-317/03 ECJ 9-Jun-2005
Europa (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226097

HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-317/03: ECJ 9 Jun 2005

Europa (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import – Marketing authorisation.

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-317/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-299/03 ECJ 9-Jun-2005
ECJ (Approximation of Laws) Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226096

HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and intervener C-316/03: ECJ 9 Jun 2005

Europa Approximation of Laws – Free movement of goods – Distinction between medicinal products and food additives – Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import – Marketing authorisation.

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ C-316/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226095

British Telecommunications Plc v Office of Communications CAT 20: CAT 27 May 2005

The dispute giving rise to the appeal had been between BT and Vodafone, which had supported the Office of Communications. Although BT had been successful, the tribunal refused to award it its costs.
Held: The Tribunal’s Rules conferred an unrestricted power to make such award of costs as it thought fit: ‘CPR Part 44.3(2), which provides that the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party but the court may make a different order, is not replicated in the Tribunal’s Rules and consequently does not apply to the Tribunal. Parliament has not created any presumption that in proceedings before the Tribunal costs should ‘follow the event’.’ and ‘we have to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the fact that BT has been successful, and on the other hand, the various considerations mentioned above. Rule 55 gives the Tribunal a wide discretion. Our judgment is that where OFCOM has determined a dispute in accordance with the procedure in the 1997 Regulations, and could have been appealed against by either side, it would not be right to order OFCOM to pay BT’s costs in circumstances where OFCOM defended the appeal entirely reasonably and wider public interests were involved. BT has benefited commercially from the stance which it legitimately took. We do not consider that BT will suffer material financial hardship if the costs of this case are treated as part of the general regulatory costs which BT incurs by virtue of the fact that it has significant market power.’

Citations:

[2005] CAT 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225359

Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications -[2005] CAT 14: CAT 27 May 2005

Citations:

[2005] CAT 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 20-Jul-2005
. .
See Also – Floe Telecom Ltd v Office of Communications CAT 13-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225361

Stadt Halle, RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH v Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna: ECJ 11 Jan 2005

ECJ Directive 92/50/EEC – Public service contracts – Award with no public call for tenders – Award of the contract to a semi-public undertaking – Judicial protection – Directive 89/665/EEC
ECJ The City of Halle had decided to award a contract for the handling and disposal of its waste to RPL, a company with limited liability. Three quarters of RPL’s shares were held by a wholly owned subsidiary of a company itself wholly owned by Halle. Just under one quarter were held by a private company. Leuna challenged the proposed contract on the ground that Halle had failed to comply with the Directives. The question was whether the existence of a substantial private shareholding in the contractor was inconsistent with the control test.
Held: The court observed that in Teckal the distinct entity was wholly owned by the public authorities. On the other hand, participation, even as a minority, of a private undertaking excluded the possibility of the contracting authority exercising a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments. This was incompatible with the Teckal exemption because the element of private capital meant that the control test was not satisfied.

Citations:

C-26/03, [2005] EUECJ C-26/03, [2005] ECR I-1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 89/665/EEC, Directive 92/50/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Jivraj v Hashwani SC 27-Jul-2011
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 . .
Cited – Brent London Borough Council and Others v Risk Management Partners Ltd SC 9-Feb-2011
The council had put out to tender its insurance requirements. The respondent submitted its bid. The council then withdrew the tender in order to take up membership of a mutual company providing such services created by local authorities in London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221002

Commission v Netherlands C-41/02: ECJ 2 Dec 2004

ECJ Free Movement of Goods – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) – Foodstuffs to which vitamins or mineral salts have been added – National legislation making their marketing subject to there being a nutritional need – Measures having equivalent effect – Justification – Public health – Proportionality)

Judges:

A Rosas, P

Citations:

[2004] EUECJ C-41/02, [2004] ECR I-11375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220003

Gefluegelschlachterei Freystadt Gmbh and Co Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 27 Sep 1979

ECJ 1. Paragraph I of the protocol on German internal trade and connected problems, annexed to the EEC Treaty, is intended to relieve the federal republic of Germany of the obligation to apply the rules of community law to german internal trade. It accords a special status to the german democratic republic as territory which does not form part of the community but which is not a non-member country vis-a-vis the federal republic of Germany.
For a transaction to form part of german internal trade within the meaning of the protocol, it is necessary, and at the same time sufficient, that the goods are put into free circulation in the german democratic republic without having been in free circulation in a third country after having left the territory of the federal republic of Germany.
2. The concept of export within the context of the community provisions concerning export refunds for agricultural products subject to the common organization of the markets must be interpreted as meaning that it does not refer to trade forming part of german internal trade within the meaning of the protocol on german internal trade.

Citations:

R-23/79, [1979] EUECJ R-23/79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214851

Brauerei A. Bilger Sohne Gmbh v Heinrich Jehle and Marta Jehle. (Policy of The EEC): ECJ 18 Mar 1970

It is possible that an agreement between undertakings, although it does not relate either to imports or to exports between member states within the meaning of article 4(2)(1) of regulation no 17, may affect trade between member states within the meaning of article 85(1) of the eec treaty.
Exclusive supply agreements, the execution of which does not require the goods in question to cross national frontiers, do not relate either to imports or to exports between member states within the meaning of article 4(2)(1) of regulation no 17.
Article 88 of the EEC treaty refers to national rules on jurisdiction and procedure, with the result that the phrase ‘authorities in member states’ which appears both in this provision and in article 9(3) of regulation no 17 includes national courts.
The acknowledged power of the authorities in member states to apply article 85(1) of the eec treaty implies the power to apply paragraph (2) of that article.
An agreement between undertakings which is exempt from notification and which has not been notified is fully effective for so long as it has not been found to be void.

Citations:

R-43/69, [1970] EUECJ R-43/69

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214095

Impresa Lombardini: ECJ 27 Nov 2001

Law Relating To Undertakings – Directive 93/37/EEC – Public works contracts – Award of contracts – Abnormally low tenders – Detailed rules for explanation and rejection applied in a Member State – Obligations of the awarding authority under Community law

Citations:

[2001] ECR I-9233, C-286/99, [2001] EUECJ C-286/99, [2004] 1 CMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/37/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Commercial

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214012

Krupp Thyssen Stainless v Commission (ECSC): ECJ 13 Dec 2001

ECSC Treaty – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Alloy surcharge – Price fixing – Rights of the defence – Duration of the infringement – Fine – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Principle of equal treatment

Citations:

T-47/98, [2001] EUECJ T-47/98, [2002] 4 CMLR 15, [2001] ECR II-3757

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214013

Kledingverkoopbedrijf De Geus En Uitdenbogerd v Robert Bosch Gmbh and Van Rijn: ECJ 6 Apr 1962

1. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court exclusively dependent on the existence of a request
(EEC Treaty, article 177)
2. Procedure – preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EEC treaty – request by a national court – form not laid down in the treaty
(EEC treaty, article 177)
3. Procedure – preliminary ruling on interpretation of articles 85 et seq. Of the EEC treaty – justified request
(EEC treaty, article 177)
4. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court – limits
(EEC treaty, article 177)
5. Competition – article 85 of the EEC treaty – immediately applicable
6. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – no automatic nullity – principle of legal certainty
7. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – legal consequences of this provision before the entry into force of the implementing regulation
8. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – implementing regulation – entry into force – legal consequences
9. Competition – agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty – effect as regards nullity of agreements and decisions not notified

Citations:

R-13/61, [1962] EUECJ R-13/61, [1962] ECR 47

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213756

Hendry and others v World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association Ltd: CA 11 Jul 2001

Expedited application for permission to appeal. Professional snooker players had sought an injunction to prevent their professional association bringing in a change of rules without the claimants having adequate opportunity to take advice.
Held: The refusal had been a matter of the exercise of a judicial discretion. The judge had had a difficult case, but had given proper reasons for his decision, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Henry, Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1127

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, European

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201248

Roquette Freres SA v Directeur General de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Repression des Fraude (Third Party, Commission of the European Communities): ECJ 22 Oct 2002

The Commission suspected the applicant of anti-competitive practices, and sought permission and support in an enforced entry and seizure of the applicant’s premises. The French court sought guidance as to the considerations involved.
Held: The national court had a duty under European law to investigate the request to the extent of asking whether the proposed steps were arbitrary or disproportionate to the investigation proposed, but it could not investigate the justification of the measures sought beyond those issues.

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2002, C-94/00, [2002] EUECJ C-94/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.177483

Bell Davies Trading Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 30 Jul 2004

The directors of the company had organised a scheme for imports from China which was thought to be an unlawful abuse of the import licensing scheme. When presneted with an application by the Secretary of State for the winding up of the company, the company gave undertakings as to their future conduct. They then sought a declaration that certain operations would not be in breach of those undertakings, and appealed a refusal of a declaration, and of the undertakings, saying they had been given under effective compulsion.
Held: Generally a party giving an undertaking would not later be heard to speak against it, but in this case it was effectively an appeal against the judge’s decision not to wind the company up only if undertakings were given. This was a case in which the company could be allowed to appeal against its own undertakings. An application for declaratory relief by the company rather than winding up at the request of the Seceretary might have been a better approach in the first place. Had the company sought to establish the lawfulness or otherwise of their scheme they might not have ended up in this postion. The judge’s decision was correct.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery The Honourable Mr Justice Collins Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1066, Times 21-Sep-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bell Davies Trading Ltd and KTA Limited ChD 16-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – In the Matter of the Supporting Link; In the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 ChD 19-Mar-2004
The Secretary of State sought the winding up of the company. Directors offered undertakings as to their future behaviour.
Held: The Court should be slow to accept such undertakings unless the Secretary consented. The company was solvent, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Company

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199593

British Sugar v Commission: ECJ 29 Apr 2004

Europa For an agreement between undertakings or a concerted practice to be capable of affecting trade between Member States, it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability and on the basis of objective factors of law or fact that it may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States, such as might prejudice the realisation of the aim of a single market between the Member States. Thus, the effect on intra-Community trade is normally the result of a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily decisive.
The fact that a cartel relates only to the marketing of products in a single Member State is not sufficient to exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected. Since the market concerned is susceptible to imports, the members of a national price cartel can retain their market share only if they defend themselves against foreign competition.
In the case of an annulment action against a Commission decision imposing a fine for a breach of the competition rules, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to examine how in each particular case the Commission appraised the gravity of unlawful conduct. In an appeal, the purpose of review by the Court of Justice is, first, to examine to what extent the Court of First Instance took into consideration, in a legally correct manner, all the essential factors to assess the gravity of particular conduct in the light of Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and Article 15 of Regulation No 17 and, second, to consider whether the Court of First Instance responded to a sufficient legal standard to all the arguments raised by the appellant with a view to having the fine cancelled or reduced.
It is not for the Court of Justice, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the Court of First Instance exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of Community law
ECJ Appeal – Competition – Sugar market – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Agreement – Effect on trade between Member States – Fine – Proportionality.

Citations:

C-359/01, [2004] EUECJ C-359/01P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196654

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 pharmaceutical products.

Citations:

C-2/01, [2004] EUECJ C-2/01P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 . .
See Also – 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 by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192229

Strintzis Lines Shipping v Commission: ECFI 11 Dec 2003

ECJ (Judgment) Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 – Investigations carried out at company premises other than those of the company to which the investigation decision is addressed – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of State authorities – Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty – Whether infringing conduct may be imputed – Fines – Application of the guidelines on calculating fines.

Citations:

T-65/99, [2003] EUECJ T-65/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192215

Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd: ECJ 10 Dec 2002

The respondent sought to transpose the Directive into UK law. The Applicant objected saying that the Directive was invalid.
Held: The Directive had been made under Article 95 EC, concerning the internal market. Insofar as the Directive regulated the composition of tobacco products, and their packaging and labelling as Low Tar etc, it was valid. Where however the Directive sought to have effect on sales outside the Community, it was not properly based, and was invalid.
Where EU legislative or administrative institutions exercise a discretion involving political, economic or social choices, especially where a complex assessment is required, the court will usually intervene only if it considers that the measure is manifestly inappropriate: ‘As a preliminary point, it ought to be borne in mind that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures implemented through Community provisions should be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it . .
With regard to judicial review of the conditions referred to in the previous paragraph, the Community legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in an area such as that involved in the present case, which entails political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.’

Judges:

G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-2002, C-491/01, [2002] EUECJ C-491/01, ECLI:EU:C:2002:741, [2002] ECR I-11453

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2001/37/EC on the approximation of laws concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco (OJ 2001 L184, p26)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178735

Artegodan v Commission: ECFI 26 Nov 2002

ECJ Medicinal products for human use – Community arbitration procedures – Withdrawal of marketing authorisations – Competence – Criteria for withdrawal – Anorectics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephedrine, phentermine – Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC.

Citations:

T-74/00, [2002] EUECJ T-74/00, [2002] ECR 11-495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Artegodan v Commission ECFI 28-Jun-2000
. .
See Also – Commission v Artegodan and others ECJ 24-Jul-2003
. .
See Also – Artegodan v Commission ECFI 5-Sep-2001
. .
See Also – Commission v Artegodan and others (Order) ECJ 8-May-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – British American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 5-Nov-2004
The claimants challenged the validity of regulations restricting cigarette advertisements, saying that greater exceptions should have been allowed, and that the regulations infringed their commercial right of free speech.
Held: The Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Commercial, Arbitration

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178574

Commission of the European Communities v French Republic C-483/99: ECJ 4 Jun 2002

Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) – Rights attaching to the ‘golden share held by the French Republic in Societe Nationale Elf-Aquitaine.

Citations:

[2002] EUECJ C-483/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC 56

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 13-May-2003
Complaint was made by the Commission that the ‘golden share’ retained by the respondent government in British Airports Authority was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of capital under the Treaty. The share could only be owned by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173964

Irish Sugar v Commission T-228/97: ECFI 7 Oct 1999

Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) – Dominant position and joint dominant position – Abuse – Fine.

Citations:

[1999] ECR II-2969, [1999] EUECJ T-228/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173416

British Shoe and others v Commission: ECFI 30 Jun 1998

ECJ Dumping – Textile footwear originating in the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia – Commission Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty – Action for annulment – Subsequent regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty – No need to adjudicate.

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-73/97

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173345

CCE Vittel and others v Commission: ECFI 27 Apr 1995

ECJ Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Trade unions and works councils – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Sufficient interest giving the recognized representatives of the employees the right to submit their observations, upon application, in the administrative procedure.

Citations:

[1995] EUECJ T-12/93

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Comitu Central d’Entreprise de la SA Vittel and Comitu d’Etablissement de Pierval v Commission of the European Communities ECFI 6-Jul-1993
ECFI Where the effect of suspending the operation of a Commission decision authorizing, at the request of employees’ representative bodies in some of the undertakings concerned, a concentration between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172639

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: ECFI 18 Dec 1992

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.

Citations:

T-10/92, [1992] EUECJ T-10/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172545

MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether it should be stood over for a summary assessment. In the absence of other aggravating features, it was wrong to refuse entirely a party his costs. The remedy was disproportionate. The court should make use of other ways of penalising a party in default.

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-2000, Gazette 08-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83270

Nachi Europe C-239/99: ECJ 15 Feb 2001

(Judgment) Common commercial policy – Anti-dumping measures – Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 – Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan – Reference for a preliminary ruling on whether that regulation is valid – Failure by the plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking annulment of the regulation

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ C-239/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162672

Autriche v Commission C-99/98: ECJ 15 Feb 2001

(Judgment) Action for annulment – Plan to grant State aid in the field of power semiconductors – Notification of the Commission – Content of the notification and of supplementary questions put by the Commission – Nature and duration of the investigation – Commission’s right of objection – Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC)

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ C-99/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:94, [2001] ECR I-1101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162356