# C_2008313EN.01001901.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 6 October 2008 — VZW Vlaamse Federatie van Verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en Chocoladebewerkers ‘VEBIC’, the other parties being: Raad voor de Mededinging and the Minister van Economie

(Case C-439/08)

(2008/C 313/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VZW Vlaamse Federatie van Verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en Chocoladebewerkers ‘VEBIC’

Applicant:

Other parties: Raad voor de Mededinging and Minister van Economie

Other parties:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must [Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, in particular Articles 2, 15(3) and 35(1)] (1) above be interpreted to mean that national competition authorities derive directly from them an entitlement to formulate written observations on arguments raised, in the context of appeal proceedings, against a decision made by them, and that they can themselves present arguments in fact and in law, with the result that this entitlement cannot be excluded by a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must [Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, in particular Articles 2, 15(3) and 35(1)] (1) above be interpreted to mean that national competition authorities derive directly from them an entitlement to formulate written observations on arguments raised, in the context of appeal proceedings, against a decision made by them, and that they can themselves present arguments in fact and in law, with the result that this entitlement cannot be excluded by a Member State?

1

| 2. | Must the same provisions be interpreted to mean that, for the effective application of the competition rules with a view to protecting the public interest, the public enforcement bodies which are designated as the competition authorities are not only entitled but also have a duty to participate in the appeal proceedings against their decisions by stating their position in relation to the arguments raised in fact and in law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the same provisions be interpreted to mean that, for the effective application of the competition rules with a view to protecting the public interest, the public enforcement bodies which are designated as the competition authorities are not only entitled but also have a duty to participate in the appeal proceedings against their decisions by stating their position in relation to the arguments raised in fact and in law?

| 3. | If questions (1) and (2) are answered in the affirmative, must these provisions then be interpreted to mean that, in the absence of national provisions concerning the participation by the competition authority in the proceedings before the appeal body, and where various authorities are involved, it is the authority which is competent to take the decisions set out in Article 5 of the Regulation which shall participate in the appeal proceedings against its decision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If questions (1) and (2) are answered in the affirmative, must these provisions then be interpreted to mean that, in the absence of national provisions concerning the participation by the competition authority in the proceedings before the appeal body, and where various authorities are involved, it is the authority which is competent to take the decisions set out in Article 5 of the Regulation which shall participate in the appeal proceedings against its decision?

| 4. | Are the answers to the above questions different if the competition authority acts, in accordance with national law, as a court of law and/or if the final decision is taken on completion of an investigation by a body belonging to that court and charged with drawing up the objections and a draft decision? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are the answers to the above questions different if the competition authority acts, in accordance with national law, as a court of law and/or if the final decision is taken on completion of an investigation by a body belonging to that court and charged with drawing up the objections and a draft decision?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

1

---