Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Service-station agreements — Duration — Significant contribution made by one supplier's contracts to the closing-off of the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same supplier)
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, exclusive purchasing agreement, interpretation of the law, supplier, trade agreement

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/3

Aduaneiro do Porto, (Customs Court, Oporto) Portugal, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between José Teodoro de Andrade and Director da
Alfândega de Leixo˜ es, intervener: Ministério Publico — on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 6, 53 and
243 thereof, and of the Community rules relating to value
added tax, — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puisso-
chet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fen-
nelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 53 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
does not preclude the automatic application, without prior
notification, of a procedure such as
that established by
Portuguese legislation, which provides for goods to be put up
for sale where the statutory time-limits for making a declaration
for release for free circulation or an application for another
customs-approved treatment or use for the goods have expired.

2. Use of a procedure providing either for such goods to be put up
for sale or for an ad valorem surcharge to be levied in order to
regularise the situation of the goods is not in itself contrary to
the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to
determine whether the surcharge applied in the present case
complies with that principle.

3. Article 6(3) and Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 do
not preclude use of a procedure, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which does not provide for interested parties
to receive prior notification.

4. A surcharge intended to penalise a failure to comply with
customs formalities cannot be subject to value added tax.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi
Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (1)

(Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Ser-
vice-station agreements — Duration — Significant contri-
bution made by one supplier’s contracts to the closing-off of
the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same
supplier)

(2001/C 118/05)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-214/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Neste Markkinointi Oy and Yötuuli Ky and Others —
on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81(1) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
ris,
Judges;
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
2000, in which it has ruled:

J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,

The prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81(1) EC) does not apply to an exclusive purchasing
agreement entered into by a motor-fuels supplier which the retailer
may terminate upon one year’s notice at any time where all
that supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, whether considered
separately or as a whole, taken together with the network of similar
agreements made by the totality of suppliers, have an appreciable
effect on the closing-off of the market but where the agreements of
the same kind as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings by
reason of their duration represent only a very small part of the totality
of one supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, of which the
majority are fixed term contracts entered into for more than one year.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.