Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comment on “Central Negotiating Mandate”

Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 6 October 2015 – Case No. KZR 17/14

  • Case Note
  • Germany
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See for the German version of the judgment Federal Supreme Court, 2016 GRUR p. 304 et seq. For a translation in English, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-016-0464-y.

  2. C-202/88 – French Republic v. Commission, para. 12, in: ECLI:EU:C:1991:120; see for a comprehensive history of Art. 106(2) TFEU E.-J. Mestmäcker and H. Schweitzer (2012), in: U. Immenga and E.-J. Mestmäcker (eds.), Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 1: EU/Part 1, Art. 106(2) TFEU, para. 1 et seq.

  3. See K. Lenaerts (2012) “Defining the concept of ‘Services of General Economic Interest’ in light of the ‘checks and balances’ as set out in the EU Treaties”, Jurisprudence, p. 1255.

  4. For a comprehensive introduction see H. Richter (2014) “Zwischen Liberalisierungspolitik und Gemeinwohlinteressen: Das deutsche Presse-Grosso und Dienstleistungen von allgemeinem wirtschaftlichem Interesse gemäß Art. 106 para. 2 AEUV”, in: M. Knoke et al. (eds.), Das Publicness-Puzzle – öffentliche Aufgabenerfüllung zwischen Staat und Markt.

  5. See Cologne District Court, 2012 GRUR-RR p. 171 (173).

  6. See Cologne District Court, 2012 GRUR-RR p. 171 (175).

  7. See for critique V. Emmerich (2014) “Das Presseprivileg des § 30 Abs. 2a GWB – ein Fall des Art. 106 Abs. 2 AEUV?”, in: D. Heid et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Manfred A. Dauses zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 76–86; N. Guggenberger and L. Ulmer (2013) “Presse-Grosso: Vielfaltssicherung durch Artenschutz!?”, AfP, pp. 183–189; M. Paschke (2012) “Bestandsschutz für das Pressegrosso als Eingriff in die Pressevertriebsfreiheit”, AfP, pp. 431–441; “Kartellrechtsnovelle für Pressegrosso ohne Kompetenzgrundlage”, AfP, pp. 501–510; M. Soppe (2013) “Die gesetzliche Absicherung des Pressegrossovertriebssystems im Rahmen der achten GWB-Novelle”, AfP, pp. 365–372. See for affirmation J. Kühling (2013) “Kartellrechtliche Befreiung und Betrauung des Presse-Grossos in der GWB-Novelle – Zulässige Daseinsvorsorgemaßnahme nach Art. 106 Abs. 2 AEUV?”, ZUM, pp. 18–28; B. Paal (2012) “Presse-Grosso auf dem Prüfstand”, AfP, pp. 1–9; J. Schwarze (2013) “Zur Zulässigkeit der neuen Regelung über das Presse-Grosso in § 30 Abs. 2a GWB”, NZKart, pp. 270–278.

  8. See Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, 2014 GRUR-RR p. 353 (358 et seq.).

  9. See T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 167, in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29.

  10. See Green Paper of 2003, COM(2003)270 final; White Paper of 2004, COM(2004) 374 final.

  11. See J.L. Buendia Sierra (2014) “Article 106” in: J. Faull and A. Nikpay, The EU Law of Competition, para. 6.154.

  12. See T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 166, in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29; T-17/02 – Olsen v. Commission, para. 216, in: ECLI:EU:T:2005:218; T-106/95 – FFSA and Others v. Commission, para. 99, in: ECLI:EU:T:1997:23. It has to be noted that the Commission has confined itself to this standard and the CJEU has not yet explicitly recognised such a limitation of its own competence regarding the definition of SGEIs, see G.S. Ølykke and P. Møllgaard (2016) “What is a service of general economic interest?”, European Journal of Law and Economics, p. 212.

  13. See T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 168, in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29.

  14. See T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 172, in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29.

  15. See Case 127/73 – BRT v. SABAM, in: ECLI:EU:C:1974:25 on intellectual property.

  16. H. Schweitzer (2011) “Services of General Economic Interest: European Law’s Impact on the Role of Markets and of Member States”, in: M. Cremona, Market Integration and Public Services in the European Union, pp. 33 et seq.; see J.L. Buendia Sierra (2014) “Article 106” in: J. Faull and A. Nikpay, The EU Law of Competition, para. 6.149 on the synonym application of the terms SGEI and public service.

  17. See point 14 of the Communication from the Commission on SGEIs in Europe (OJ 2001 C 17), p. 4.

  18. See T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 186 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29; H. Schweitzer (2011) “Services of General Economic Interest: European Law’s Impact on the Role of Markets and of Member States”, in: M. Cremona, Market Integration and Public Services in the European Union, p. 34; as a consequence referring to market failure as the underlying concept G.S. Ølykke and P. Møllgaard (2016) “What is a service of general economic interest?”, European Journal of Law and Economics, pp. 206–241.

  19. See J.L. Buendia Sierra (2014) “Article 106” in: J. Faull and A. Nikpay, The EU Law of Competition, para. 6.152 with further case references.

  20. See BT-Drs. 17/11053, p. 18.

  21. See already Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, 2014 GRUR-RR p. 353 (359 et seq.).

  22. See M. Paschke (2012) “Kartellrechtsnovelle für Pressegrosso ohne Kompetenzgrundlage”, AfP, p. 501 (504).

  23. Not only that it only defines the legal treatment of particular means to an end, but also the explicit reference to Art. 106(2) TFEU is unusual, compare e.g. to C-53/00 – Ferring, para. 5 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:2001:627; T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 14 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29; C-475/99 – Ambulanz Glöckner, para. 3 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:2001:577; C-67/96 – Albany, para. 3 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:1999:430; C-203/96 – Dusseldorp, para. 12 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:1998:316; C-393/92 – Almelo, para. 5 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:1994:171; Case 66/86 – Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen, para. 10 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:1989:140, details in Federal Supreme Court, 1986 GRUR Int p. 471; T-106/95 – FFSA and Others v. Commission, para. 5 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:T:1997:23.

  24. See Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, 2014 GRUR-RR p. 353 (358 et seq.).

  25. C-159/94 – Commission v. France, para. 65, in: ECLI:EU:C:1997:501; Case 127/73 – BRT v. SABAM, para. 20, in: ECLI:EU:C:1974:25; Case 66/86 – Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen, para. 55, in: ECLI:EU:C:1989:140; T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 181, in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29.

  26. See Case 10/71 – Port of Mertert, para. 11, in: ECLI:EU:C:1971:85.

  27. As already held by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, 2014 GRUR-RR p. 353 (359), but very briefly and without any reasoning relating to EU law; J. Thoma (2015), in: W. Berg and G. Mäsch (eds.), Deutsches und Europäisches Kartellrecht, § 30 GWB, para. 39.

  28. See J.C. Joerden (2010) Logik im Recht about the lack of premises (Prämissenmangel), p. 362; see for a more intuitive but not less illustrative approach R. Arp (2007) “The Chewbacca Defense: A South Park Logic Lesson.”, in: R. Arp (ed.), South Park and Philosophy, pp. 40–53.

  29. T-17/02 – Olsen v. Commission, para. 188 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:T:2005:218; C-205/99 – Analir and Others, para. 64, in: ECLI:EU:C:2001:107; C-159/94 – Commission v. France, para. 66, in: ECLI:EU:C:1997:501.

  30. See T-289/03 – BUPA and Others v. Commission, para. 188, in: ECLI:EU:T:2008:29; moreover J.L. Buendia Sierra (2014) “Article 106”, in: J. Faull and A. Nikpay, The EU Law of Competition, para. 6.157: It is debatable, whether simple private contracts are sufficient for entrustment; however, even this is only discussed for cases in which one of the parties is a state actor.

  31. See H. Schweitzer (2011) “Services of General Economic Interest: European Law’s Impact on the Role of Markets and of Member States”, in: M. Cremona, Market Integration and Public Services in the European Union, p. 35.

  32. See J. Gundel (2007), in: G. Hirsch et al. (eds.), MüKo-EuWettbR, Art. 86 EG, para. 83 et seq.

  33. See E.-J. Mestmäcker and H. Schweitzer (2012), in: U. Immenga and E.-J. Mestmäcker (eds.), Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 1: EU/Part 1, Art. 106(2) TFEU, para. 53.

  34. C-205/99 – Analir and Others, para. 52 et seq., in: ECLI:EU:C:2001:107 discussed two aspects: A contract, which was limited to a certain period, as well as alternative means and their relationship for the provision of SGEIs. However, the contract was between the state and private providers (thus not private self ordering).

  35. See Federal Supreme Court, 2012 NJW p. 773.

  36. See G.S. Ølykke and P. Møllgaard (2016) “What is a service of general economic interest?”, European Journal of Law and Economics, pp. 206–241.

  37. See F.C. Haus (2014) “Anmerkung zu Presse-Grosso II”, WuW, p. 830 (836).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Heiko Richter (Dipl.-Kfm. (Mannheim); Ass. jur. (Berlin); LL.M. (Columbia); Doctoral Student and Junior Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Heiko Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heiko Richter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richter, H. Comment on “Central Negotiating Mandate”. IIC 47, 373–381 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0471-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0471-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation