Advertisement

EEC Competition Law after the Brasserie de Haecht II and SABAM Cases

  • D. J. Gijlstra
  • D. F. Murphy

Abstract

In February 1973, the Court of Justice of the European Communities at Luxembourg issued its decision in the second Brasserie de Haecht Case1. The decision surprised many observers2, especially that part of the decision dealing with the concept of provisional validity and its consequences. This concept had been developed by the Court of Justice during the eleven years between the enacting of Regulation 17 and its decision in the Haecht II Case.

Keywords

Member State National Authority National Court European Economic Community Titre Incident 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Case 48/72 of February 1973; reference to the Court of Justice by the Tribunal de Commerce of Liège for a preliminary ruling in the case pending before that Court between S.A. Brasserie de Haecht and the spouses Wilkin-Janssen (Brasserie De Haecht II Case). (Rec. 1973 pp. 77–100; Samm 1973 pp. 77-too; Jur. 1973 pp. 77–99; [1973] CMLR pp. 287 ff.; CCH 8170) Brasserie de Haecht I, case 23/67 of 12 December 1967, was also a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce of Liège in the same actions pending before that Court. (Rec. 1967 pp. 525–549; Samm. pp. 542–567; Jur. 1967 pp. 511–534; [1968] CMLR pp. 26 ff.; CCH 8053).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baardman, De Beschikkingspraktqk van de Europese Commissie: art. 85, lid 1, in Europees Kartelrecht anno 1973, Deventer 1973, pp. 48–49; Dashwood, A new look at provisional validity, Cambridge Law Journal 33(1) April 1974, pp. 1,6–129; Deringer, Anm. Brasserie de Haecht II, N.J.W. 1973 pp. 965–966; Edit. Annotation Brasserie de Haecht II, G.P. 1973 PP. 337–348; Edit. Two Landmark decisions, CMLR (19731 pp. 121–122; W. van Gerven, noot Haecht II, SEW 1973, PP. 337–348; Hackenberger, H. J. and Schmidt, U., Die vorläufige Gültigkeit von Kartellvereinbarungen und Beschlüssen nach Art. 85 EWGV, AWD 1973 pp. 188–192; Ter Kuile, Het Hof van Justitie en de nationale rechter en de artt. 85 en 86 van het EEG-Verdrag, in: Europees Kartelrecht anno 1973, Deventer 1973, pp. 165–167 en pp. 172–174; Lauwaars, Noot op Haecht II, Ars Aequi 1974, pp. 230–236; Saint-Esteben, Concurrence, La mise en oeuvre de l’article 85 après l’arret de la C.J.C.E. du 6 février 1963 (Brasserie de Haecht) RTDE 1973, pp. 27o-292; Ullrich, Anm. Brasserie de Haecht II, AWD 1973, p. 330; Vogelaar and Guy, The Second Brasserie de Haecht Case: a Delphic Oracle, ICLQ Vol. 22 1973, pp. 648–663; Waelbroeck, M., Annotation Aff. no 48–72 SA. Brasserie de Haecht C. Wilkin-Janssens (déc.-préj.) C.D.E. pp. 164–188; Wertheimer, The Haecht II Judgement and its Repercussions, CMLRev. 1973, pp. 386424.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Case 127/73 of January 3o, 1974; Reference to the Court of Justice by the Tribunal de Première Instance of Brussels for a preliminary ruling in the actions pending before that Court between 1. B.R.T. and NV FONIOR. 2. SV SABAM and NV FONIOR, 3. B.R.T. and SV SABAM and NV FONIOR (SABAM Case) (not yet published). The Court of Justice gave its second ruling in case 127/73 on March 27, 1974 (not yet published).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Infra pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. Rome, March 25, 1957.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regulation no. 17 of the Council of February 6, 1962. First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (Regulation 17) O.J. no. 13/204 of February 6, 1961. This Regulation came into force on March 13, 1962.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hereafter, general reference to agreements includes agreements, decisions and concerted practices.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Regulation no. 17, article 4(5).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Regulation no. 17, article 4(2). As amended by Regulation no. 2822/71 of the Council of 20 December 1971. Supplementing the provisions of Regulation no. 17 or the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. O.J. no. L 285/49–50 of 29 February 1971.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regulation 17, Article 5(5) as amended by Regulation 59 of the Council of July 3, 1962. O.J. 58, July 10, 1962, p. 1655.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Regulation 17, Article 5(2). See also infra p. 84.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Member States of the European Communities), the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community. Brussels, January 22, 1972. Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties. Annex I, II (Accession Treaty).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Article 25 of Regulation 17 read in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 17. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See Bellamy and Child, Common Market Law of Competition, London 1973, para 4i8–419, para 428–429 and Cunningham, The Competition Law of the EEC, London 1973, para 4–50 para 4–54.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Vogelaar and Guy, The Second Brasserie de Haecht Case: a Delphic Oracle., ICLQ 1973, p. 656, and Cunningham, op. cit. para 4–35 para 4–40 and Bellamy and Child, op. cit. para 204–205, para 208, para 240. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    For a text of the United Kingdom Governments Aide Mémoire, see Cunningham, op. cit. Appendix M.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Decision of the Commission of the European Communities, (69/243/EEC) of 24 July, 1969. Re Cartel in Aniline Dyes (J.O. L 195/11 1969; ABL L 195/11 1969; Pb. L 195/11 1969; [1969] CMLR D23).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Case 48–69, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Rec. 1972, pp. 619–710; Samm. 1972, pp. 619–712; Jur. 1972, pp. 619–712; (1972) CMLR, pp. 557 ff.; CCH 8161); Case 52–69, J. R. Geigy AG against the Commission of the European Communities, (Rec. 1972, pp. 787–842; Samm. 1972, pp. 787–840; Jur. 1972, pp. 787–843; (1972) CMLR pp. 557 ff.; CCH 8164); Case 53–64, Sandoz AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Rec. 1972, Pp. 845–850; Samm. 1972, pp. 845–850; Jur. 1972, pp. 845–850; (1972) CMLR, pp. 557 ff.).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Noel L. Allen, The development of European Economic Community antitrust Jurisdiction over Alien Undertakings, Legal Issues of European Integration, Law Review of the Europa Instituut of the University of Amsterdam, 1974/2, PP. 35–78.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Decision of the Commission of the European Communities (73/457/EEC) of 14 December, 1972. Laboratorio Chimico Farmaceutico Giorgio Zoja SpA versus Commercial Solvents Corporation and Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano. (JO 1973, L 299/51; ABL 1973L299/51; Pb 1973 L 299/51; (1973) CMLR D5o).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joined Cases 6–7/73, of March 6, 1974. Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano SpA and Commercial Solvents Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities (not published yet).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Supra part A I, p. 81.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Regulation 17, Article 15(5a).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Supra p. 81.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Regulation 17, Article 6(1).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Regulation 17, Article 6(2).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Regulation 17, Article 7(1).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Regulation 17, Article 6(2).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The date was January I, 1964, modified by Regulation no. 118/63/EEC,O.J. no. 162, November 17, 1963, p. 2696.Google Scholar
  30. 3o.
    Regulation 17, Article 7(2).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Regulation no. 19/65/EEC of the Council of 2 March 1965 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices, (OJ no. 36, 6 March 1965, p. 533). Applied by the Commission in its Regulation no. 67/67/EEC of 22 March 1967 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of exclusive dealing agreements, (OJ no. 57, 25 March 1967, p. 849). Amended by Regulation no. 2591/72/EEC of the Commission of 8 December 1972 (OJ no. L 276 of 9 December 1972, p. 15).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Regulation no. 28211711EEC of the Council of 20 December 1971 on the application of 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices, (OJ no. L 285, 29 December 1971, p. 46). Amended by Regulation no. 2743/72/EEC of the Council of 19 December 1972, (OJ no. L 291, 28 December 5972, p. 144). Applied by the Commission in its Regulation no. 27791721EEC of 21 December 1972 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of specialisation agreements, (OJ no. L 292, 29 December 1972, p. 23).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Case 13/61, of 6 April 1962; reference to the Court of Justice by the Gerechtshof of ‘s-Gravenhage for a preliminary ruling in the case pending before that Court between: de Vennootschap onder Firma Kledingverkoopbedrÿf De Geus en Uitenbogerd and de Vennootschap naar het recht van de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland Robert Bosch GmbH and de naamloze vennootschap N.V. Maatschappÿ tot voortzetting van de zaken der Firma Willem van Rÿn, (Bosch case) (Rec. 1962, pp. 89–192; Samm. 1962, pp. 97–152; Jur. 1962 pp. 89–144; [1962] CMLR, pp. 1–3r; CCH 8003).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See Rec. 1962, pp. 126–127; Samm. 5962, pp. 135–536; Jur. 5962, p. 127.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See Schermers, H. G., The Law as it stands on preliminary rulings, in Legal Issues of European Integration. Law Review of the Europa Instituut of the University of Amsterdam, 1974/1, pp. 93–112.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    This concept had already been used by the Court of Justice under ECSC law in its decision in Case no. 1/58 of 4 February 1959 Friedrich Stork & Co. against the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, (Rec. 1959, PP. 47–89; Samm. 1959, pp. 47–88; Jur. 1959, PP. 47–92).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Campbell, ICLQ, 1962, pp. 1027–1053; Cassano, RDE, 1963, pp. 255–261; Draetta, D.I. 1962, pp. 265–273; De Caluwé and Casalonga, IC pp. 108–112; Deringer, AWD 5962, pp. 108 ff.; Deringer, GRUR AIT 1962, pp. 283–309; Drueck, The Harvard International Law Club Journal 1962, pp. 128–136; Edit., MA 1962, PP. 495 ff.; Foschini, RDC 1963 II, pp. 1 ff.; PP. 2–19; Françon, JDI 1963, pp. 390–401; Franzosi, RDI 1963, pp. 3-u; Gori, FP 1962, col. 46–48; Gleiss and Hirsch, BB 1962, pp. 1623 ff.; Jeanted, JCD, Gem. Jur. 1962, II no. 12726; Langenna, RDE 1963, pp. 64–72; Le Tallec, Gaz. Pal. 1962, May 5–8, PP- 44–48; Loussouarn, RTDC 1962, pp. 529–534; Menges, DB 1962, pp. 661 ff.; Plaisant, RIPAI 1962, pp. 261 ff.; Plaisant, RIC 1962 pp. 9–17; Robert, Rec. Dal. 1962, pp. 359–369; Samkalden, SEW 1962 pp. 216–226; Samkalden, SEW 1964, pp. 257–262; Schlieder, BB 1962, pp. 305–312; Thompson, ICLQ 1962, pp. 721–742; Waelbroeck, RCDIP 1962, p. 415; Weyer, BB 1962, p. 467.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    See for instance Baardman, in Europees Kartelrecht, Deventer 1965, p. 109; Beier, Die Kartellrechtliche Beurteilung von Alleinvertriebsvertragen im Gemeinsamen Markt und der USA. GRUR AIT, 1969 pp. 84 ff.; Deringer, The Competition Law of the EEC, Chicago 1968, para 265 ff.; Gleiss and Hirsch, EWG-Kartellrecht, 2. Auflage, p. 266; Kooy, Het EEG-Kartelrecht in ontwikkeling, Pre-advies voor de Calvinistische Juristenvereniging, mei 1962; Niederleithinger, Annotation under L. G. Mannheim, 22 January 1965, AWD 1965, p. 62; Scholz, WPP 1964, p. 265; Vandamme, CDE 1966, p. 418; Waelbroeck, La validité provisoire des ententes in Europees Kartelrecht, Leuven 1969, p. 126–127.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    See for instance, Mailänder, Zuständigkeit und Entscheidungsfreiheit nationaler Gerichte im EWG-Kartelrecht, Baden-Baden 1965, pp. 57–58; Markert, Vorläufige Gültigkeit und Verfahrensaussetzung im EWG-Kartellrecht, AWD 1966, pp. 42–43; Samkalden, Het Bosch-arrest en de nieuwe kartelafspraken, SEW 1964, pp. 259–260; Steindorff, Rechtsschutz und Verfahren im Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Baden-Baden 1964, pp. 104–109; Steindorff, Zur Nichtigkeit Wettbewerbsbeschränkenden Abreden, in Zur Integration Europas. Festschrift für C. F. Ophûls, Karlsruhe 1965, pp. 215–216; Van Gerven, SEW 1970, p. 18.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Samkalden, Het arrest van het Hof van Justitie der Europese Gemeenschappen van 6 april 1962 in de zaak 13/61 (Bosch), SEW 1962, p. 225.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Case 10/69 of 9 July 1969; reference to the Court of Justice by the Tribunal de Commerce of Brussels in the actions pending before that court between N.V. Portelange and N.V. Smith Corona Merchant International and others, (Portelange case) (Rec. 1969, PP. 309–32o; Samm. 1969, pp. 309–320; Jur. 1969, PP. 309–320, [1947] CMLR pp. 397–428, CCH 8075).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Since 1937 there were already relations between one of the partners of Portelange and Merchant Calculating Machines Corp. who later merged with Smith Corona into Smith Corona Merchant Corporation in New York.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Invoking the Belgian Law of 27 July 1961, on the unilateral cancellation of exclusive dealership contracts of indefinitive duration.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    CCH 8075, p. 8092.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    CCH 8075 PP. 8093–8094.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rec. 1969, pp. 320–323; Samm. 1969 pp. 320–323; Jur. 1969 pp. 321–323; CCH pp. 8097–8100.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See Boulois, AFDI 1969, p. 303; Braun, JC 1969, PP. 364–365; Bricmont, JT 1969, p. 622; Catalano, FI 1969, pp. 152–153; Champaud, RTDE 1969 pp. 759–765; Goldman JDI 1970, PP- 474–476; Deringer, AWD 1969, pp. 326–333; Van Gervan, SEW 1970, pp. 7–37; Knöpfle, JZ 1969, pp. 788–792; Pouzano, RDE 1969 pp. 332–333; Steindorff, BB, 1969 pp. 980–982; Telchini, Riv. dir. int. priv. proc. 1970, pp. 421–423; Ulmer, EuR 1969, pp. 344–348; Ulmer, AWD 1970, pp. 193–598; VanderSanden, RMC 1969, PP. 473–483.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    See for instance Ellis en van den Heuvel, Europees mededingings-en kartelrecht, p. 452 e; Spormann, Die Aufweichung des Kartellverbotes im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht, WuW 1970, PP. 459–470; Deringer, AWD 1969, pp. 326–333; Less clear, but probably also in this sense Champaud, op. cit. and Boulois, AFDI 1969, p. 303; Ulmer EuR 1969, PP. 344–348 and AWD 1970, pp. 193–198. But he adds that a restrictive interpretation could lead to the conclusion that the Court only meant old agreements.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rec. 1969, P. 316; Samm. 1969, P. 316; Jur. 5969, p. 317; CCH, p. 8095.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    See for instance, Spormann op. cit. p. 460.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    See for instance van Gerven SEW 1970, pp. 7–37; Nass, Probleme des Europäischen Kartellverfahrens, EuR 1970, pp. 100–134; Mègret, Louis, Vignes, Waelbroeck, Le droit de la Communauté economique européenne, Vol. 4 Concurrence p. 165 (Waelbroeck, concurrence); Lauwaars, A. A. 1974 pp. 230–236.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    See for instance van Gerven, SEW 1970 pp. 7–37; Ulmer, AWD 1970, pp. 193–198; Vander-Sanden, RMC 5969, pp. 473–483.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Case 43/69 of 18 March 5970; reference to the Court of Justice by the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe in the action pending before that Court between Brauerei A. Bilger Söhne and Heinrich Jehle and Martha Jehle, (Bilger Case) (Rec. 1970 pp. 127–144; Samm. 5970 pp. 127–144; Jur 5970 pp. 127–144; [1974] CMLR pp. 302–396; CCH 8076).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    See CCH p. 8105.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    See CCH p. 8105.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    See in general: Aubert, RTDE 1971, pp. 86–87; Boulouis, AN. Fr. Droit INT. 1970, p. 360; Capello, FP 197o no. 718 p. 18; Champaud, RTDE 1970, PP. 491–493; Deringer, AWD 1970, pp. 181–182; Edit. GP 1970, August p. 3; van Gerven, SEW 1970, pp. 373–380; Kovar, JDI 1971, pp. 424–427; Maas and van der Wielen, CMLRev. 1971, pp. 244–247; Spormann, WuW 1970, pp. 454–470; Telchini, Riv. dir. Int. priv. proc. 1970, pp. 910–912; Tirzano, FI, pp. 99–102; Ulmer, EuR pp. 252–255. Critical: van Gerven op. cit., Ulmer op. cit.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    See van Gerven op. cit., Ulmer op. cit. Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Case 1/70 of 3o June 1970; reference to the Court of Justice by the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe in the action pending before that Court between Parfums Marcel Rochas Vertriebs G.m.b.H. and Helmut Bitsch. (Rec. 1970, pp. 515–533; Samm. 1970 pp. 515–533; Jur. 1970 pp. 515–533; [1970] CMLR pp. 104 ff.).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Infra p. 104.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rec. 1970, p. 524; Samm. 1970, p. 524; Jur. 197o, p. 524; [197,] CMLR, pp. 166–217.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Case 22171 of 25 November 1971; reference to the Court of Justice by the Tribunal de Commerce de Nice in the actions pending before that Court between Béguelin Import Co. and others versus S.A.G.L. Import Export, (Rec 1971 pp. 949–972; Samm. pp. 949–972; Jur pp. 949–972; CCH 8,49; [1971] CMLR pp. 81-,o6.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    See Rec. 1971, p. 96,; Samm. 1971, p. 961; Jur. 1971 p. 962; CCH p. 7705.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    In the Bosch Case the Court of Justice used the phrase `provisionally valid’ (Fr: provisoirement valables, Ger: vorläufig gültig, Dutch: voorlopig geldig) whereas it used the term `valid’, (Fr: valable, Ger: (voll) wirksam, Dutch: volle werking) in the Portelange Case. Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Supra p. 89. Rec. 1962, p. Io8; Samm. 1962, p. 114; Jur. 1962 p. 108; CCH, p. 7139, and Rec. 1969, PP-316–317; Samm. 1969, pp. 3,6–3,7; Jur. 1969 pp. 317–318; CCH, p. 8095.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Supra p. 9o.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Supra p. 92. Rec. 1970, pp. 138; Samm. 197o, pp. 138; Jur. 1970, pp. 138; CCH p. 8,09.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Supra p. 86. Rec. 1962, p. 109; Samm. 1962, p. 117; Jur. 1962, p. III; CCH p. 7140.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    See for instance Deringer, A.; EWG Wettbewerbsrecht Art. 85, Abs. 2, Anm. 70; Hadding, W., Die zivilrechtliche Wirksamkeit angemeldeter Vereinbarungen oder Beschlüsse in Sinne des Artikels 85 EWG V. WuW 1965, p. 371 ff.; Mestmäcker, Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht; Spormann, Die Aufweichung des Kartellverbotes im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht; WuW 1970, PP. 459–470; Ulmer, AWD, 1970, pp. 193–198. For a special opinion see: Nass, Probleme des Europäischen Kartellverfahrens, EuR 1970, pp. 100–134.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    See for instance: Netherlands: Kantonrechter,Amsterdam, 9 May 1963, N.J. 1963, no. 423; Kantonrechter, Amsterdam, 28 June 1962, N.J. 1963, no. 34; Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, 25 June 1962, N.J. 1963, no. 218. Germany: B.G.H. 14 March 1963 Trockenrasierer, B.B. 1963, PP. 1393 ff.; N.J.W. 1964, pp. 152 ff.; WuW 1967, pp. 175 ff.; O.L.G. Munich, 30 May 1963, WuW 1963, p. 626.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    See J. G. Geelkerken, Nietigheid van concurrentiebeperkingen, pp. 246–248.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    See for instance Alexander, The domestic Courts and Article 85 of the Rome Treaty, CMLRev. 1963 pp. 447 ff.; Drion, De toepassing van het verbod van artikelen 85, lid 1,en 86 door de nationale autoriteiten, in Europees Kartelrecht, 1965, p. 84; See also references given by Waelbroeck, M., La validité provisoire des ententes, in Europees Karelrecht 1967, p. 125 and by Vandamme, J. La mise en oeuvre des articles 85 et 86 du traité de Rome, CDE 1966, pp. 417419.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    See for instance VanderSanden, G., La validité provisoire des ententes, RMC 1969, pp. 473 ff.; Waelbroeck, M., op. cit., pp. 121 ff. Contra: Foriers et Simont, L’affaire des chaufourniers, CDE 1968, pp. 445–471.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Belgium: Belgium Court of Cassation, 8 june 1967. JT 1967, p. 458 ff.; Tribunal de Bruxelles, 9 December 1968, JT 1969, p. 567 ff. France: Paris, 26 January 1963, JT 1963, pp. 169 ff. See for further references Waelbroeck, op. cit., pp. 121 ff. and van Damure, op. cit. pp. 417–419 and Waelbroeck, M., Concurrence, pp. 162–163.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Supra p. 93.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Supra pp. z, 3, 6.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    For the nature of a decision under Article 15(6) see Joint Cases 8–11/66 of 15 March 1967, (Noordwijks Cement Agreement) S.A. Cimenteries C.B.R. Cementbedrÿven N.V. and 51 others versus the Commission of the EEC. (Rec. pp. 92–141; Samm. pp. 98–148; Jur. 1967 pp. 91–137; CCH 8052; [1967] CMLR pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Regulation 17, Article 15(5).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    In agreement: van Gerven, SEW 1970, p. 15; Waelbroeck, Concurrence p. 167. Contra: Spormann, AWD 1970, p. 157; Ulmer, EuR 1969, p. 348; AWD 1970, p. 193.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rec. 1969, p. 317; Samm. 1969, p. 317; Jur. 1969, p. 318; CCH p. 8095; [1974] CMLR p. 418.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Supra p. 84.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    See Judgement of the Court of Justice in the Bosch Case and the Bilger Case. Contrary: Oberdorfer, Gleiss, Hirsch, in Common Market Cartel Law, second edition 1971, para 403–407. These authors content that the national authorities may not prosecute violations of Articles 85(1) and 86 ex officio or on their own motion. Seen in the light of the Court’s rulings in the abovementioned cases we consider this interpretation to be far too limited. Bellamy and Child, op. cit. par. 1220 state that `there are no competent authorities within the United Kingdom who have any independent power (whether under the Treaty, under Regulation 17, or under U.K. domestic law) to impose fines, make investigations or require infor mation relating to the enforcement of Articles 85(1) and 86’.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Contra Harms, Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Gemeinschaftsrechtsordnung und der nationalen Rechtsordnungen auf dem Gebiet des Wettbewerbs, Deutscher Bericht an die Komission II (Wettbewerb) des V. Internationales Kongresses für Europarecht in Berlin 1970. For a further discussion of the question of provisional validity has a suspensive effect on the actions taken by the National Authorities see Waelbroeck, Concurrence, pp. 153–155.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Infra p. 105.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Rec. 1962, p. 105; Samm. 1962, p. 113; Jur. 1962, p. 1o7; CCH p. 7138; [1962] CMLR p. 28. Rec. 1969, p. 316; Samm. 1969, p. 316; Jur. 1969, p. 317; CCH p. 8095; [1974] CMLR p. 418.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Supra p. 94. For the question of the ‘National Courts’ and ‘National Authorities’ for the purposes of Article 9(3) of Regulation 17, infra pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    See [1974] CMLR, pp. 391–392.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    See Wertheimer, op. cit. pp. 393–395. See Written parliamentary question No. 4/71 by Mr. Springorum of 17 March 1971, J.O. of 8 June 1971, no. 557, p. 6 and the answer of the Commission of 17 May 1971, J.O. of 8 June 1971, no. C 57, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Supra p. 79.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Supra p. 83.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Infra pp. 103–104.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Supra p. 91.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Consideration 2. Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Consideration 8.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Consideration 9 and 13.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Consideration to.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Consideration I2.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Supra p. 93.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Concurring: Wertheimer, CMLRev. 1973, P. 405; van Gerven, SEW 1973, P. 341; Dashwood, op. cit., p. 125; Hackenberger and Schmidt, op. cit., p. 191.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Concurring: Wertheimer, CMLRev. 1973, P. 405; van Gerven, SEW 1973, P. 341; Vogelaar and Guy, op. cit., pp. 656–657; Hackenberger and Schmidt, op. cit., p. 191; Saint-Esteben, op. cit., p. 286. Contra: Dashwood, op. cit., p. 122.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Supra p. 9o.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Supra p. 94.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Concurring: van Gerven, SEW 1973, p. 343; van der Wielen, op. cit., p. 155; Vogelaar and Guy, op. cit., p. 663. Doubtful: Saint-Esteben, op. cit., pp. 291–292.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Concurring: van der Wielen, op. cit., pp. 155–156; Wertheimer, CMLRev. 1973, p. 402. Contra: Saint-Esteben, op. cit., p. 285; Vogelaar and Guy, op. cit., p. 657.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    However this comment applied to the pre-accession Community only.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    G. vanderSanden, La validité provisoire des ententes, RMC 1969, PP. 479–483.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    See however the decision in the SABAM Case where it was held that national courts were not authorities of the Member States for the purposes of Article 9(3) of Regulation 17 and thus were not obliged to suspend hearings whenever the Commission initiated a procedure under Regulation 17.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Concurring: Waelbroeck, CDE 1974, P. 173; Van Gerven, SEW 1973, PP. 341–342.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Concurring: Van Gerven, SEW 1973, P. 341; Vogelaar and Guy, op. cit. p. 661; Dashwood, op. cit., p. 118; van der Wielen, op. cit., p. 155.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Concurring: Vogelaar and Guy, op. cit. p. 659; Wertheimer, CMLRev. 1973 pp. 402–403; van Gerven SEW 1973 P. 343; Dashwood, op. cit. p. 124.Google Scholar
  110. 100.
    Infra pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Infra p. 104. Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    See Waelbroeck, Concurrence pp. 154–155; Oberdorfer, Gleis, Hirsch, Common Market Cartel Law, znd ed. p. 41I.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Supra p. 93. Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Regulation no. 27 of the Commission. First Regulation implementing Council Regulation no. 17 of 6 February 1962. Rectified by Regulation EEC, no. 1133/68 of 26 July 1968. (Form, content and other details concerning applications and notifications).Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    For commentary on the Rochas case see: Aubert, RTDE 1971, pp. 86–87; Boulouis, An. Fr. Droit Int. 1970, p. 360; Champaud, RTDE 1970, pp. 492–498; Telchini, Riv. dir. int. priv. proc. 1970, pp. 919–920.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Supra p. 79.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Concurring: Vogelaar and Guy, op. cit., p. 655; Bellamy and Child, op. cit., p. 537.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    See Waelbroeck, concurrence, pp. 152–154; Goldman B., Droit Commercial européen, Deuxième Edition, pp. 370–373; Oberdorfer, Gleiss, Hirsch, op. cit.,p. 200.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    See Saint-Esteben, op. cit., p. 278.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Concurring: Alexander, W., The Domestic Courts and Article 85 of the Rome Treaty, 5962 CMLRev., p. 446; Kooij, op. cit.,p. so; Geelkerken, op. cit., p. 246; Waelbroeck, concurrence,pp. 158–159 also for further references. Contra: Obendorfer, Gleiss, Hirsch, op. cit., p. 201.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Waelbroeck, concurrence, p. 159.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    See Ulmer, Europäisches Kartellrecht auf neuen Wegen? Kritische Bemerkungen zu neuen Kartellrechtlichen Vorabentscheidungen des Gerichtshof der Europäischer Gemeinschaften, AWD 197o, pp. 193–198; C. E. Rexhe and Andries, La collaboration entre l’ordre juridique communautaire et les ordres juridiques nationaux dans le secteur de la concurrence. Rapport belge présenté à la Commission II (Concurrence) du Vième Congrès International de Droit Européen, Berlin 197o, pp. 16–17; Vandamme, op. cit., J. Nass, op. cit.; Foriers et Simont, op. cit.; Spormann, op. cit. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Gijlstra
  • D. F. Murphy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations