Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:689
Date: 2000-12-14
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Exclusive agreements;Dominant position
Concepts: General;Binding nature of the competition rules and measures taken by Member States, direct effect
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Ireland

SUMMARY — CASE C-344/98 
Summary of the Judgment 
Competition — Community rules — Application by the national courts — Assessment 
of an agreement or practice which has already been the subject of a Commission 
decision — Conditions 
(EC Treaty, Arts 85(1) and 86 (now Arts 81(1) EC and 82 EC) and Art. 173, fifth para, 
(now, after amendment, Art. 230, fifth para., EC)) 
Where a national court is ruling on an 
agreement or practice the compatibility of 
which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the 
Treaty (now Articles 81(1) EC and 82 EC) 
is already the subject of a Commission 
decision, in order not to infringe the 
principle of legal certainty it cannot take 
a decision running counter to that of the 
Commission, even if the latter's decision 
conflicts with a decision given by a national 
court of first instance. 
It is irrelevant in that respect that, in the 
context of an action for annulment brought 
against the Commission's decision by its 
addressee on the basis of the fifth para­
graph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, 
after amendment, the fifth paragraph of 
Article 230 EC), the President of the Court 
of First Instance suspended operation of the 
Commission's decision. 
If such an action for annulment has been 
brought within the period prescribed, it is 
for the national court to decide whether to 
stay proceedings pending the final judg­
ment in that action for annulment by the 
Community Courts or in order to refer a 
question to the Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling. When the outcome of 
the dispute before the national court 
depends on the validity of the Commission 
decision, it follows from the obligation of 
sincere cooperation that the national court 
should stay its proceedings pending final 
judgment in the action for annulment by 
the Community Courts, unless it considers 
that, in the circumstances of the case, a 
reference to the Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling on the validity of the 
Commission decision is warranted. It is 
incumbent on the national court to exam­
ine whether it is necessary to order interim 
measures in order to safeguard the interests 
of the parties pending final judgment. 
(see paras 51-53, 55-60 
and operative part) 
I - 11370