Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:42:39.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2010

Robert Lane
Robert Lane
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Edinburgh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Developments: European Union Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 489 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R (on the application of Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 333.

2 Pl. ÚS 19/08 ze dne 26. listopadu 2008 (Lisabonská smlouva).

3 Grondwettelijk Hof, Arrest Nr 58/2009, van 19 maart 2009 (Sleeckx t/Vlaamse Gewest).

4 Satversmes tiesa, 2009.gada 7. aprīļa spriedums lietā Nr 2008-35-1 (Lisabonas līgum).

5 BVerfG, 30. Juni 2009 (‘Lissabon-Vertrag’ or ‘Solange IV’).

6 Østre Landsret, Hausgaard mod Statsminister & Udenrigsminister, dom af 28. oktober 2009.

7 Pl. ÚS 29/09 ze dne 3. listopadu 2009 (Lisabonská smlouva II).

8 Ratification was eventually coaxed from Mr Klaus only with a promise from the European Council to extend the application of a Protocol moderating the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Poland and in the United Kingdom to the Czech Republic ‘at the time of the conclusion of the next Accession Treaty’; Brussels European Council, 29–30 October 2009, Presidency Conclusions, para I.2 and Annex I.

9 EEC Treaty, Art 3(f); EC Treaty, Art 3(1)(g), ‘internal’ substituted for ‘common’ market by Maastricht.

10 Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] ECR 215, para 24.

11 Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time v Benetton International [1999] ECR I-3055, para 36; repeated essentially verbatim in Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, para 20; Cases T-217 & 245/03 Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande v Commission [2006] ECR II-4987, para 97.

12 Cases 6 & 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano & Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission [1974] ECR 223, para 25; Case 13/77 GB-INNO-BM v Association des détaillants en tabac (ATAB) [1977] ECR 2115, para 29; Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, para 183; Case C-95/04P British Airways v Commission [2007] ECR I-2331, paras 106, 143.

13 Case T-358/94 Air France v Commission [1996] ECR II-2109, para 56.

14 GC Rodríguez Iglesias, inaugural address to the FIDE XX Congress, 2002, London.

15 Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Art I-3(2).

16 Art. I-3(1). The Union's values were set out in Art I-2.

17 TEU (Lisbon), Art 3(2), (3).

18 TFEU, Arts 2–6.

19 Art 3(1)(b).

20 The only significant change is introduction of authority for the Council to remove (five years after the entry into force of Lisbon) the privileged position enjoyed by Germany under Art 107 TFEU since 1958 and not altered at reunification, in granting state aids to areas ‘affected by the division of Germany’; see TFEU, Art 107(2)(c).

21 Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition.

22 See Case 311/85 Vereniging van Vlaamse Reisebureaus v Sociale Dienst van de Plaatselijke en Gewestelijke Overheidsdiesten [1987] ECR 3801; Case 267/86 van Eycke v ASPA [1988] ECR 4769; Case C-41/90 Höfner v Mactrotron [1991] ECR I-1979; Case C-2/91 Criminal Proceedings against Meng [1993] ECR I-5751; Case C-185/91 Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v Gebrüder Reiff [1993] ECR I-5801; Case C-245/91 Criminal proceedings against Ohra Schadeverzekeringen [1993] ECR I-5851 (the latter three, along with the Keck judgment (Cases C-267 & 268/91 Criminal proceedings against Keck & Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097), comprising the ‘November revolution’ on greater deference to national regulation); see most recently Case C-531/07 Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft, judgment of 30 April 2009, not yet reported, per A-G Trstenjak, paras 109–196 of her opinion.

23 Buck, ‘Microsoft bows to the EU system’ Financial Times, 17 September 2007.

24 Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601.

25 ‘Le contentieux communautaire de la concurrence entre contrôle restreint et pleine juridiction’, Concurrences, N° 2-2005, 1–2.

26 Decision 2007/53 (Microsoft) OJ 2007 L32/23 (summary publication).

27 See below.

28 Case COMP/39.530 (Microsoft (Tying)), OJ 2009 C242/20.

29 Cases C-241 & 242/91P RTE & ITP v Commission (Magill) [1995] ECR I-743.

30 Cases C-395 & 396/96P Compagnie Maritime Belge v Commission [2000] ECR II-1365, per AG Fennelly, paras 132, 137 of his opinion.

31 Case T-201/04 Microsoft (n 24) para 664.

32 Passing reference was made to Microsoft in the Commission's Intel decision (Case COMP/37.990 (Intel) OJ 2009 C227/13 (summary publication), para 880; under review as Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission, pending) but without the vehemence.

33 Cases 29 & 30/83 Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines & Rheinzink v Commission [1984] ECR 1679.

34 Case T-36/05 Coats Holdings & JP Coats v Commission [2007] ECR II-110*, paras 68–71.

35 Case T-201/04 Microsoft (n 24) paras 87–88.

36 Case T-301/04 Clearstream Banking & Clearstream International v Commission, judgment of 9 September 2009, not yet reported, paras 93–95.

37 See below.

38 Regulation 1/2003, Art 3(1).

39 Case T-41/96 Bayer v Commission [2000] ECR II-3383; on appeal, Cases C-2 & 3/01P Bundesverband der Arzneimittel Importeure v Bayer & Commission [2004] ECR I-23.

40 Case C-53/03 Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) v GlaxoSmithKline [2005] ECR I-4609.

41 Cases C-468 etc/06 Sot. Lélos Kai Sia v Glaxosmithkline Farmakeftikon Proïonton [2008] ECR I-7139, per A-G Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, para 1 of his opinion.

42 See e.g. Case 26/75 General Motors Continental v Commission [1975] ECR 1367.

43 Cases C-468 etc/06 Sot. Lélos (n 41) para 69.

44 ibid para 70.

45 ibid para 76.

46 Decision 2001/791 (Glaxo Wellcome) OJ 2001 L302/1.

47 Case T-168/01 GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission [2006] ECR II-2969.

48 Cases C-501, 513, 515 & 519/06P GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission and Commission v GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, judgment of 6 October 2009, not yet reported.

49 ibid para 63.

50 ‘Preliminary Thoughts on Policy Review of Article 82’ a speech at Fordham Corporate Law Institute, 23 September 2005.

51 Case T-127/04 KME Germany v Commission, judgment of 6 May 2009, not yet reported, para 64.

52 Case COMP/39.125 (Automotive Glass) OJ 2009 C173/13 (summary publication); under review as, inter alia, Case T-73/09 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v Commission, pending. The total of €1,383,896,000 came after a reduction was made (to Asahi of Tokyo, 50 percent for cooperation) under the Commission's leniency programme, the fines originally computed at €1,497 million.

53 Case COMP/37.990 Intel (n 32).

54 Case COMP/37.792 (Microsoft), decisions of 12 July 2006 and of 27 February 2008, unpublished.

55 Case COMP/39.401 (E.ON/GDF) OJ 2009 C248/5 (summary publication).

56 Case COMP/39.326 (E.ON Energie), decision of 30 January 2008, unpublished.

57 Regulation 1/2003 OJ 2003 L1/1, Art 23(1)(e).

58 Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297.

59 Cases C-295 etc/04 Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni [2006] ECR I-6619; see the previous current developments report at (2007) 56 ICLQ 422, 427.

60 Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, COM(2005) 672 final.

61 Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, COM(2008) 165 final. See also the (more extensive) Commission Staff Working Papers accompanying the White Paper, SEC(2008) 404 and 405 and the (very extensive) impact report commissioned and published by the Commission, Making antitrust damages actions more effective in the EU: welfare impact and potential scenarios, December 2007. For criticism see editorial comments, ‘A little more action please!—The White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules’ (2008) 45 CMLR 609–615; Kortmann, & Swaak, , ‘The EC White Paper on Antitrust Damages Actions: Why the Member states are (Right to be) Less Than Enthusiastic’ [2009] ECLR 340–351Google Scholar.

62 Case COMP/38.823 (Lifts and Escalators) OJ 2008 C75/19 (summary publication).

63 Regulation 1/2003, Art 28(1). An exception is made for (‘without prejudice to’) the transmission from the Commission of information in its possession relevant to matters before a requesting national court (Art. 15) but this does not solve the problem of the Commission's direct interest in the case.

64 Proposal for a Council Directive on rules governing actions for damages for infringements of Arts 81 and 82 of the Treaty, unpublished.

65 The draft Directive proposes Art 103 as its legal base but, in the view of the Parliament, ‘[t]he Commission can certainly not base its measures in the area of national damages and procedural law on Treaty Article [103]’; Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Report on the White Paper on damages for breach of the EC antitrust rules, A6-0123/2009, p 9.

66 Art 1(1).

67 Art 1(2).

68 Art 5. There are difficulties here for some member states in which it is contrary to general principles of civil law.

69 Arts 6, 7.

70 Arts 8, 9.

71 Art 11.

72 Art 14.

73 Art 2.

74 Quantifying antitrust damages: Towards non-binding guidance for courts, December 2009.

75 ‘Reinforcing the fight against cartels and developing private antitrust damages actions: the tools for a more competitive Europe’, a speech to the Commission/International Bar Association joint conference, 8 March 2007.

76 Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585 (annulling Decision 2000/276 (Airtours/First Choice) OJ 2000 L93/1).

77 Case T-77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission [2002] ECR II-4201 (annulling Decision 2004/275 (Schneider/Legrand) OJ 2004 L101/1).

78 These are tests which adhere to the case law attending actions for damages against the Union under Arts 268 and 340 TFEU; see Case C-352/98P Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm and anor v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291; Case C-312/00P Commission v Camar & Tico [2002] ECR I-11355; Cases T-344 & 345/00 CEVA Santé Animale & Pharmacia Entreprises v Commission [2003] ECR II-229.

79 Case T-178/98 Fresh Marine v Commission [2000] ECR II-3331.

80 Case C-312/00P Camar & Tico (n 78) para 54; Case 282/05P Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission [2007] ECR I-2941, para 47.

81 Case T-212/03 MyTravel Group v Commission [2008] ECR II-1967.

82 Case T-342/99 Airtours (n 76) para 294.

83 ibid paras 81, 87.

84 Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission [2007] ECR II-2237, paras 122–124.

85 Case C-440/07P Commission v Schneider Electric, judgment of 16 July 2009, not yet reported.

86 Case T-212/03 MyTravel (n 81) para 80.

87 ibid para 37.

88 sub. nom. Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger and ors, pending.

89 See Gibbs Mew v Gemmell [1998] 1 EGLR 43 (CA), applying the rule in the context of a breach of Art 101; now moderated by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-453/99 Crehan (n 58).

90 See now Competition Act, 2002 (No 14 of 2002), ss 6, 7.

91 DPP v Flanagan and ors (or the Connaught Oil cases), a series of circuit criminal court judgments between 2004 and 2006, none reported (one sentence of six months imposed upon the cartel ‘facilitator’, suspended); DPP v Manning, judgment of the Central Criminal Court of 9 February 2007, unreported (12 months, suspended); DPP v Durrigan & Doran, guilty pleas in circuit criminal court in May and October 2008 (three months, suspended); DPP v Duffy [2009] IEHC 208 (six and nine months concurrently, suspended).

92 Case COMP/39.406 (Marine Hoses) OJ 2009 C168/6 (summary publication).

93 ibid para 6.

94 R v Whittle, Allison & Brammar [2008] EWCA 2560, [2008] All ER (D) 133.

95 OFT, decision of 1 August 2007, not yet published.

96 See United States v British Airways, plea agreement in the District Court, District of Columbia of 23 August 2007.

97 See The Cartel Offence: Guidance on the Issue of No-Action Letters for Individuals, OFT423.

98 See IB v The Queen [2009] EWCA Crim 2575, [2009] All ER (D) 90, rejecting an interlocutory appeal that the (criminal) courts were barred from proceeding as only a designated national competition authority within the meaning of Regulation 1/2003 has the power to impose a fine or other penalty upon a cartel which falls also within the prohibition of Art. 101. For the discussion of dishonesty see para 27 of the judgment.

99 Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1 AC 920.

100 Case C-176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I-7879; Case C-440/05 Commission v Council [2007] ECR I-9097; Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C 176/03 Commission v Council), COM(2005) 583 final.

101 See Case M.5278 (Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel/Citibank Private Banking Germany), decision of 28 August 2008; Case M.5296 (Deutsche Bank/ABN Amro Assets), 1 October 2008; Case M.5360 (RBSK Group/DZ Bank Group/RZB Group/HVB Banca Pentru Locuinte), 3 December 2008; Case M.5384 (BNP Paribas/Fortis), 3 December 2008; Case M.5363 (Banco Santander/Bradford and Bingley Assets), 17 December 2008; Case M.5228 (Rabobank/Bank Gospodarki Żywnościowej), 11 February 2009; Case M.5605 (Crédit Mutuel/Monabanq), 8 September 2009; Case M.5660 (Royal Bank of Scotland/Deutsche Bank/Spin Holdco), 10 December 2009; Case M.5720 (Bayerische Landesbank/Banque LBLux), 16 December 2009.

102 Case M.4439 (Aer Lingus/Ryanair), decision of 27 June 2007, not yet published; subject to (partial) review in Case T-411/07 Aer Lingus Group v Commission, pending.

103 Communication from the Commission—The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis, OJ 2008 C270/8; following and adapting the established thinking on rescuing and restructuring firms as set out in Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, OJ 2004 C244/2 (the ‘R & R Guidelines’).

104 Banking communication, ibid para 9.

105 ibid para 11.

106 Communication from the Commission—The recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition, OJ 2009 C10/2.

107 Commission communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules, OJ 2009 C195/9.

108 Communication from the commission—Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis, OJ 2009 C83/1 (modified OJ 2009 C303/6).

109 Banking communication (n 103) para 53.

110 DG Competition, Review of guarantee and recapitalisation schemes in the financial sector on the current crisis, 7 August 2009, para 7.

111 Cases N422/2009 and N621/2009 (Royal Bank of Scotland), decisions of 14 December 2009, not yet published.