Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:226
Date: 2000-05-11
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Dominant position
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
Competition — Community rules — Matters covered — Collective agreements in pursuit 
of social policy objectives — Collective agreement concerning sickness insurance and 
requiring an employer to pay employer contributions only to the insurers selected under 
that agreement — Sickness insurance business subcontracted to insurers — Not covered 
(EC Treaty, Arts. 85 and 86 (now Arts. 81 EC and 82 EC)) 
I - 7111 
SUMMARY — CASE C-222/98 
The provisions of a collective labour agree­
ment which relate to the sickness insurance 
of employees covered by the agreement and 
under which employer contributions may 
be paid only in respect of insurance taken 
out with insurer(s) selected in the context 
of implementing the agreement are compa­
tible with Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty 
(now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC). 
In that regard, the fact that the sickness 
insurance business in question was subcon­
tracted cannot prevent the exception from 
the prohibition in Article 85 of the Treaty, 
which was established by Albany (Case 
C-67/96), Brentjens' (Joined Cases 
C-115/97 to C-117/97) and Drijvende 
Bokken (C-219/97), from applying in the 
case of a collective labour agreement such 
as the one at issue. To accept such a 
limitation would constitute an unwar­
ranted restriction on the freedom of both 
sides of industry who, when they enter into 
an agreement concerning a particular 
aspect of working conditions, must also 
be able to agree to the creation of a 
separate body for the purpose of imple­
menting the agreement and this body must 
be able to have recourse to another insurer. 
(see paras 26, 32 and operative part) 
I - 7112