Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 )

2 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS - NOTIFICATION - DECISION BY THE COMMISSION TO CLOSE THE FILE ON THE CASE - LEGAL NATURE - EFFECTS ON THE FINDING OF NATIONAL COURTS AS REGARDS THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION

( EEC TREATY , ART . 85 )

3 . COMPETITION - COMMUNITY RULES - NATIONAL LEGISLATION - PARALLEL APPLICATION PERMISSIBLE - CONDITION - COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAW

( EEC TREATY , ARTS . 85 AND 86 )

4 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS - NOTIFICATION - DECISION BY THE COMMISSION TO CLOSE THE FILE ON THE CASE - COMMUNITY RULES NOT APPLICABLE - PERMISSIBLE TO APPLY NATIONAL PROVISIONS PROHIBITING A REFUSAL TO SELL

( EEC TREATY , ART . 85 )

Summary

1 . WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TASK GIVEN IT BY ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY TO A GIVEN CASE BUT THE NEED TO REACH A USEFUL INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW ENABLES IT TO EXTRACT FROM THE FACTS OF THE MAIN DISPUTE THE DETAILS NECESSARY FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AND THE FORMULATION OF AN APPROPRIATE REPLY .

2 . AN ADMINISTRATIVE LETTER DESPATCHED WITHOUT PUBLICATION AS LAID DOWN IN REGULATION NO 17 INFORMING THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED OF THE COMMISSION ' S OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION AND THAT THE FILE ON THE CASE MAY THEREFORE BE CLOSED CONSTITUTES NEITHER A DECISION GRANTING NEGATIVE CLEARANCE NOR A DECISION APPLYING ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 2 AND 6 OF REGULATION NO 17 .

SUCH A LETTER DOES NOT HAVE THE RESULT OF PREVENTING NATIONAL COURTS BEFORE WHICH THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION ARE ALLEGED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY FROM REACHING A DIFFERENT FINDING AS REGARDS THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM . WHILST IT DOES NOT BIND THE NATIONAL COURTS , THE OPINION TRANSMITTED IN SUCH A LETTER NEVERTHELESS CONSTITUTES A FACTOR WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN EXAMINING WHETHER THE AGREEMENTS OR CONDUCT IN QUESTION ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 85 .

3 . COMMUNITY LAW AND NATIONAL LAW ON COMPETITION CONSIDER RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW . WHEREAS ARTICLES 85 AND 86 OF THE EEC TREATY REGARD THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSTACLES WHICH MAY RESULT FOR TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , NATIONAL LAW PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSIDERATIONS PECULIAR TO IT AND CONSIDERS RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES ONLY IN THAT CONTEXT . IT FOLLOWS THAT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION IN REGARD TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION .

HOWEVER , PARALLEL APPLICATION OF NATIONAL COMPETITION LAW CAN ONLY BE PERMITTED IN SO FAR AS IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE UNIFORM APPLICATION , THROUGHOUT THE COMMON MARKET , OF THE COMMUNITY RULES ON CARTELS OR THE FULL EFFECTS OF THE MEASURES ADOPTED IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RULES .

4 . THE FACT THAT A PRACTICE HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COMMISSION NOT TO FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY , THE SCOPE OF WHICH IS LIMITED TO AGREEMENTS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , IN NO WAY PREVENTS THAT PRACTICE FROM BEING CONSIDERED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE RESTRICTIVE EFFECTS WHICH IT MAY PRODUCE NATIONALLY .

ACCORDINGLY , COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL PROVISIONS PROHIBITING A REFUSAL TO SELL EVEN WHERE THE AGREEMENTS RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTIFYING THAT REFUSAL HAVE FORMED THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION TO CLOSE THE FILE ON THE CASE .