CELEX: 61969CJ0043
Language: en
Date: 1970-03-18
Title: Judgment of the Court of 18 March 1970. # Brauerei A. Bilger Söhne GmbH v Heinrich Jehle and Marta Jehle. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe - Germany. # Case 43-69.

Avis juridique important

|

61969J0043

Judgment of the Court of 18 March 1970.  -  Brauerei A. Bilger Söhne GmbH v Heinrich Jehle and Marta Jehle.  -  Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe - Germany.  -  Case 43-69.  

European Court reports 1970 Page 00127 Danish special edition Page 00023 Greek special edition Page 00273 Portuguese special edition Page 00293 Spanish special edition Page 00021

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

++++1 . POLICY OF THE EEC - RULES ON COMPETITION - CARTELS - AGREEMENTS WHICH MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES - EFFECT ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IS NOT A CONDITION FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS CRITERION  ( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 85; REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 4 )  2 . POLICY OF THE EEC - RULES ON COMPETITION - EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY AGREEMENTS - EXECUTION NOT REQUIRING THE GOODS IN QUESTION TO CROSS NATIONAL FRONTIERS - DO NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES  ( REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 4 )  3 . POLICY OF THE EEC - RULES ON COMPETITION - APPLICATION BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS - AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES WITH JURISDICTION - INCLUDE NATIONAL COURTS  ( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 88; REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 9 )  4 . POLICY OF THE EEC - RULES ON COMPETITION - APPLICATION BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS - AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES WITH JURISDICTION - POWER TO APPLY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 )  ( REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 9 ( 3 ))  5 . POLICY OF THE EEC - RULES ON COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION - ABSENCE OF NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY OF SUCH AGREEMENTS FOR SO LONG AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE VOID  ( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 85 ( 2 ))  

Summary

1 . IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNDERTAKINGS, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17, MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY .  2 . EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY AGREEMENTS, THE EXECUTION OF WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOODS IN QUESTION TO CROSS NATIONAL FRONTIERS, DO NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 .  3 . ARTICLE 88 OF THE EEC TREATY REFERS TO NATIONAL RULES ON JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE PHRASE " AUTHORITIES IN MEMBER STATES " WHICH APPEARS BOTH IN THIS PROVISION AND IN ARTICLE 9 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 INCLUDES NATIONAL COURTS .  4 . THE ACKNOWLEDGED POWER OF THE AUTHORITIES IN MEMBER STATES TO APPLY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY IMPLIES THE POWER TO APPLY PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF THAT ARTICLE .  5 . AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNDERTAKINGS WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED IS FULLY EFFECTIVE FOR SO LONG AS IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE VOID .  

Parties

IN CASE 43/69  REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE OBERLANDESGERICHT KARLSRUHE ( 9TH CIVIL SENATE, SITTING IN FREIBURG IM BREISGAU ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN  BRAUEREI A . BILGER SOEHNE GMBH, GOTTMADINGEN,  AND  HEINRICH JEHLE, INNKEEPER AND BUTCHER, AND MARTA JEHLE, BOTH RESIDING AT FRIEDRICHSHAFEN,  

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY AND OF REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC OF 6 FEBRUARY 1962 ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1959 - 1962, P . 87 ), 

Grounds

1 BY ORDER OF 31 JULY 1969, RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 24 SEPTEMBER 1969, THE OBERLANDESGERICHT KARLSRUHE HAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EEC, SEVERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY AND OF REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL OF 6 FEBRUARY 1962 ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1959 - 1962, P . 87 ), WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 13 MARCH 1962 .  THE FIRST QUESTION  2 THE COURT IS INVITED TO STATE FIRST OF ALL WHETHER " A CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF BEER CONCLUDED BEFORE 13 MARCH 1962 BETWEEN TWO UNDERTAKINGS WITHIN ONE MEMBER STATE RELATE(S ) TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17, WHERE THE EXCLUSIVE DEALING CLAUSE IS WORDED AS FOLLOWS : " THE INNKEEPER UNDERTAKES TO PURCHASE ALL THE BEER WHICH HE REQUIRES FOR HIS ESTABLISHMENT EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE BREWERY ( ESTABLISHED IN THE SAME MEMBER STATE ) ". "  IN ADDITION, THE COURT IS ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER SUCH AN AGREEMENT MUST BE NOTIFIED ( TO THE COMMISSION ), IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) IN CONJUNCTION WITH 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 .  3 THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THESE QUESTIONS IS THUS TO DISCOVER WHETHER A CONTRACT CONCLUDED BETWEEN A PRODUCER AND AN INDEPENDENT RETAILER BY WHICH THE LATTER UNDERTAKES TO OBTAIN HIS SUPPLIES SOLELY FROM THE PRODUCER IN QUESTION WHO IS ESTABLISHED IN THE SAME MEMBER STATE FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORIES OF AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION UNDER REGULATION NO 17, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A CONTRACT, ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHERS, MAY BE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ).  4 ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF REGULATION NO 17 FREE FROM NOTIFICATION INTER ALIA ALL AGREEMENTS - WHETHER CONCLUDED BEFORE OR AFTER 13 MARCH 1962 - TO WHICH THE ONLY PARTIES ARE UNDERTAKINGS FROM ONE MEMBER STATE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS " DO NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ". THE REPLY SOUGHT BY THE NATIONAL COURT THUS DEPENDS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENTS TO WHICH IT REFERS " DO NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ", WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 .  5 ALTHOUGH WHEN CONSIDERED AS PART OF A GROUP OF SIMILAR CONTRACTS WHICH BIND A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF RETAILERS WITHIN ONE STATE TO CERTAIN PRODUCERS ESTABLISHED IN THE SAME STATE SUCH A CONTRACT MAY, IN GIVEN CASES, AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, NEVERTHELESS UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 THESE ARRANGEMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION PROVIDED THAT THEY DO NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . IT SEEMS POSSIBLE, THEREFORE, THAT A SINGLE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT " RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES " WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS PROVISION, " MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES " WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY . THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE TO " RELATE TO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS " IS THUS NARROWER THAN THE PHRASE TO " AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ".  6 EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY AGREEMENTS, THE EXECUTION OF WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOODS IN QUESTION TO CROSS NATIONAL FRONTIERS CLEARLY DO NOT RELATE TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 AND ARE THUS EXEMPT FROM THE NOTIFICATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPHS OF ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF THIS REGULATION .  THE SECOND QUESTION  7 SHOULD THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS RECEIVE A NEGATIVE REPLY, THE NATIONAL COURT REQUESTS THE COURT TO STATE : " WHAT INTERPRETATION MUST BE GIVEN TO ARTICLE 85 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY AS REGARDS AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION, HAVING REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF AN EXEMPTING DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 17 " AND, IN PARTICULAR, TO STATE WHETHER AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION IS PROVISIONALLY VALID .  8 THE PURPOSE OF THESE QUESTIONS, CONSIDERED WITHIN THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE MAIN ACTION, IS TO DISCOVER WHETHER THE NATIONAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY LAW ON THE INVALIDITY OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH, ALTHOUGH IT IS COVERED BY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY, IS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION AND HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED .  9 UNDER ARTICLE 9 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 : " AS LONG AS THE COMMISSION HAS NOT INITIATED ANY PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLES 2, 3 OR 6 " OF THE REGULATION, " THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES SHALL REMAIN COMPETENT TO APPLY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) ... IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY ". THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE 88 REFERS TO NATIONAL RULES ON JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE CONCEPT OF " AUTHORITIES IN MEMBER STATES " INCLUDES NATIONAL COURTS . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWER TO APPLY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) NECESSARILY IMPLIES THE POWER TO APPLY PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF THAT ARTICLE WHICH RENDERS VOID " ANY AGREEMENTS ... PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE ".  10 ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY AND ARTICLE 9 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 GIVE NO INDICATION AS TO THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS MAY MAKE SUCH A FINDING OF NULLITY . HOWEVER, AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED BEFORE OR AFTER 13 MARCH 1962, WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION UNDER REGULATION NO 17 ITSELF, CANNOT BECOME VOID RETROACTIVELY IF THEY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY TO BE REGARDED AS SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ).  11 IF, UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ), THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITIES MAY EXEMPT AGREEMENTS ENTIRELY FROM PROHIBITION AND NULLITY UNDER ARTICLE 85, IT FOLLOWS THAT BY EXEMPTING CERTAIN AGREEMENTS BY MEANS OF REGULATION NO 17 FROM ALL NOTIFICATION THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE RISK OF BEING FOUND VOID ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM THE DAY ON WHICH SUCH A FINDING IS MADE . MOREOVER, A DIFFERENT SOLUTION WOULD SERIOUSLY ENDANGER LEGAL CERTAINTY TO THE DETRIMENT OF PARTIES WHO, HAVING CONCLUDED AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNLIKELY TO AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, COULD REASONABLY EXPECT THIS AGREEMENT TO HAVE, IN THIS RESPECT, AT LEAST THE SAME EFFECT AS NOTIFIED AGREEMENTS DATING FROM BEFORE 13 MARCH 1962 .  12 FOR ALL THESE REASONS THE REPLY TO THE NATIONAL COURT SHOULD BE THAT AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED IS FULLY EFFECTIVE FOR SO LONG AS IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE VOID .  

Decision on costs

13 AS THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE OBERLANDESGERICHT KARLSRUHE, THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT . 

Operative part

THE COURT  IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE OBERLANDESGERICHT KARLSRUHE, BY ORDER OF THAT COURT DATED 31 JULY 1969, HEREBY RULES :  1 . ON THE FIRST QUESTION  A CONTRACT WHICH IS CONCLUDED BETWEEN A PRODUCER AND AN INDEPENDENT RETAILER BY WHICH THE LATTER UNDERTAKES TO OBTAIN HIS SUPPLIES SOLELY FROM THE SAID PRODUCER WHO IS ESTABLISHED IN THE SAME MEMBER STATE AND THE EXECUTION OF WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOODS IN QUESTION TO CROSS NATIONAL FRONTIERS DOES NOT RELATE EITHER TO IMPORTS OR TO EXPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17, AND IS, THEREFORE, EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION;  2 . ON THE SECOND QUESTION  AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED IS FULLY EFFECTIVE FOR SO LONG AS IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE VOID .