EC Private Antitrust Enforcement: Decentralised Application of EC Competition Law by National Courts 9781472560216, 9781841137445

Citation preview

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page v

Στην Τατια′να και τον Αλε′ξη

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page vi

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page vii

FOREWORD I. The present book on EC Private Antitrust Enforcement is published timely. It is the first comprehensive monograph in English on EC law of private enforcement of EC competition law since the publication of Clifford Jones’s remarkable thesis in 1999. Assimakis Komninos addresses an aspect of EC competition law which is in a certain sense the last chapter of the process of modernisation of European antitrust law which started in the late 1990s. The preceding chapters are well known: first the reform of the interpretation of Article 81 with respect to vertical restraints; secondly, the revision of Regulation 17 and its replacement by Regulation 1/2003, abolishing the traditional notification requirement, eliminating the Commission’s monopoly power to exempt certain agreements and thereby decentralising the application of Article 81; thirdly, the reform of the Merger Regulation; and, finally, the ongoing debate about the interpretation of Article 82, in particular the notion of ‘abuse’. Although the reform of the application of Article 82 will continue over a couple of years (inter alia, because its results will have to be reviewed by the Court of Justice), it will not last forever. By comparison, the discussions about increased private enforcement of EC competition law will last much longer. Not because these discussions have started later. In fact, private enforcement is an issue that is as old as the early application and implementation of Articles 81 and 82. Since the decentralisation of the application of Article 81 and the publication of the Commission’s Green Paper, the debate has of course obtained a new quality, both in depth and in intensity. However, the main reasons for the likely persistence of the discussions about private enforcement are institutional. At least at this stage of the development of European integration, private enforcement does not lend itself to a single major legislative initiative undertaken at the level of the EU. For the foreseeable future, in the area of private enforcement, there will be no equivalent of Articles 81 and 82, of implementing Regulations such as Regulations 17 and 1/2003, or of the Merger Regulation. It is likely that the EU Commission will contribute to the increasing importance of private enforcement in the Member States through ideas, soft law and—perhaps—strictly limited punctual interventions in the form of proposals for directives or regulations. The Court of Justice will of course pursue carefully its jurisprudence in strengthening progressively the substantive and procedural rights of private parties; its jurisprudential contribution to the incremental growth of hard EC law relating to private enforcement will probably be greater than that which can be expected from the Community legislature. In the main, private enforcement will grow with the help of reforms of national law. Conceivably, these reforms will take place spontaneously, without being pushed by hard or soft law Community instruments. In other words, national law facilitating private enforcement may develop as much without pressure from Brussels as national competition law has developed over the last decades.

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page viii

viii Foreword II. At the basis lies the assumption that the powerful drive for increased private enforcement is not just one other aspect of the strong East–West current which has characterised EC competition law since the 1990s. There is no doubt that the review of the traditional interpretation of Articles 81 and 82 as well as the reform of the Merger Regulation is strongly influenced by concepts and insights developed over the last decades in the US. There is also no doubt that decentralisation, ie the institutional side of the modernisation process, has benefited from US experiences. European competition experts have always known—and been impressed by—the strength of private enforcement on the other side of the Atlantic; private enforcement in the US has largely compensated for the strong shifts in US public enforcement which have resulted from political changes in the US administration. But European observers are also mindful of the excesses of US private litigation culture: few (if any) would like to import these excesses into EC or Member States’ law. More important than the inspiration from the US example are in my view factors which are genuine to European developments and experiences, even if these developments and experiences are themselves the result of earlier US influences. The most important factor is the general conviction that the preservation of competition as a process is beneficial for the competitiveness of the European economy as a whole and of every Member State’s economy in particular. Though once limited to certain Member States, this conviction has now spread throughout the EU. It is the explanation of the emergence of a true competition culture and the spontaneous adoption of largely similar competition laws in all the Member States, without any push through hard or soft law approximation from Brussels. The growing interest in and appetite for private enforcement is thus a sign of the maturity of the competition law system in the EU. The second factor is the recognition that the overall enforcement of competition law will benefit from private enforcement. Private enforcement is perceived as a useful complement to public enforcement. Public enforcement has its natural limits: human resources available to competition authorities will always be short in supply when compared with demand. The Commission’s antitrust enforcers have had this painful experience first; national competition authorities have not escaped the same constraints. Empowering and inciting private actors to behave as ‘private attorneys general’ enhances the overall efficiency of a country’s competition law system, perceived—as noted before—as contributing to the well-being of the national economy and its citizens. Recognition of the limits of the action of public authorities is of course not specific to the area of competition law and enforcement. It is a characteristic of the attitudes towards the state and practically all its activities during recent decades, beginning with the policies pursued by President Reagan in the US and subsequently Prime Minister Thatcher in Europe. At the same time, general faith in the positive outcome of the normal play of market forces—and the activities of private agents—has grown. The pursuit of private interest is not seen as being in conflict with public interest. The positive attitude towards private enforcement is thus another aspect of the triumph of the liberal, free market philosophy. The author of the present monograph shares this view, though not in these precise terms. One of the ‘leitmotivs’ of his book is the emphasis on the independence of private enforcement with respect to public enforcement. Whatever the legal reasons for this position are,

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page ix

Foreword ix the theory of independence seems to us to presuppose implicitly a certain faith in the harmony—or at least compatibility—of the results of actions of agents of the state and of initiatives of private actors controlled of course by independent judges. In addition to the conviction that the efficient enforcement of competition law is a useful contribution to the well-being of the national economy and its citizens, a third element stimulates Member States to strengthen spontaneously private enforcement. This third element is pure national self-interest: from the point of view of a given Member State, it is economically and politically desirable to create a favourable legal environment which attracts private enforcement initiatives, not only from the Member State’s own economic actors, but also from those of other Member States. The reasons are simple: The US discovered a long time ago that legal services are an important part of the services industry. Private enforcement requires additional legal services; it stimulates their growth as much as that of the associated economic consultancy services. In addition, to become a ‘hub’ for the private enforcement of claims of actors operating outside the national borders, but within the European Union, enhances the impact and influence of a national legal system beyond the national borders. In a certain way, it contributes to the export of the national legal culture. Facilitating private enforcement is thus an obvious candidate for competition between legal systems. The present monograph demonstrates that this process of competition between Member States has clearly started. It is likely to continue. Contrary to other sectors of the economy, such as taxation, at least from the point of view of the complainants, it is not a race to the bottom, but rather a race to the top. The efforts of individual Member States to strengthen private enforcement within the European Union will have another advantage. These efforts will diminish the obvious temptation of European plaintiffs to try to pursue their claims in the US. Comity arguments against the adjudication of such claims by US courts according to US law will be more convincing if European plaintiffs can find appropriate redress within the EU than if such redress were practically excluded or minimal in scope. Will the strengthening of private enforcement through legislation enacted in individual Member States entail the risk that US litigation culture is introduced in Europe? At least at this point in time, the risk seems to be low. European traditions and convictions are hopefully strong enough to avoid the excesses of ‘ambulance chasing’—although the emergence of a certain type of aggressive ‘plaintiff bar’ is not at all excluded, if the wrong economic incentives were to be provided by inadvertent legislators or judges.

III. The risk of stimulating economically harmful private litigation could result not only from overshooting by legislators or judges. It could also be a consequence of administrators, ie the activities of competition authorities. European competition authorities are used to the traditional European concept of public enforcement of competition law through more or less independent competition agencies. For these authorities and their officials active and vibrant private enforcement will be a novelty. It is therefore normal, at least at this moment in time, for the actions of these authorities not to be influenced by considerations related to the possible side effects of their activities. However, these activities can lead to major

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page x

x Foreword private litigation activities even if, in the end, no definitive public action is taken or, if taken, is not upheld by the controlling courts. Competition agencies should therefore be wary that they are no longer alone, but that they operate in an environment in which any of their moves can and will increasingly give rise to private actions before national courts with possibly highly undesirable consequences. The emergence of efficient private enforcement is thus not mono-directional. It will change the existing equilibrium and may well invite competition authorities and courts to be more careful with respect to what economists call ‘false positives’, ie the overenforcement of competition law. Also in this respect, this evolution in the EU is likely to follow earlier experiences in the US.

IV. Decentralisation of the implementation of EC competition law through Regulation 1/2003 has shown great confidence in national courts. If the Commission had limited its proposal to share its traditional monopoly to exempt certain restrictive agreements only with national competition authorities, this would already have been a remarkable step. To abolish this monopoly altogether and to entrust the power of exemption also to national judges was clearly revolutionary. Stimulating further private enforcement of EC antitrust law is nothing but a logical consequence of the adoption of Regulation 1/2003: after all, the adjudication of private claims is the natural responsibility of judges and courts. Nevertheless, the push for private enforcement is a renewed sign of confidence in the judiciary, at least with regard to ‘standalone’ private action, i.e. action other than litigation that simply follows a public enforcement decision. The ongoing review of the interpretation of substantive EC competitive law, giving ever greater relevance to the evaluation of the economic effects will be a challenge for judges. On the other hand, the growing consensus that the primary objective of EC competition law is consumer welfare, and not a cocktail of more or less competing political aims, will facilitate the tasks of courts.

V. The increased importance of economic analysis in the interpretation of substantive EC competition law has clearly affected the traditional position of lawyers in the public enforcement of EC competition law. Instead, the contribution of economists has grown in importance, in particular in the area of merger control. The same will apply progressively to the application of Article 82, provided the more effects-oriented interpretation of the notion of abuse is approved by the Courts in Luxembourg. The strengthening of private enforcement and its growing practical importance will deliver to lawyers at least part of the lost territory. Private enforcement requires knowledge and skills that are different from and additional to those which are necessary for applying substantive and procedural competition law in administrative and judicial procedures related to enforcement by competition authorities. It is even possible that increased private

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xi

Foreword xi enforcement will create a new type of competition bar, ie lawyers who are specialised in private litigation before national courts. In any case, private enforcement of competition law is a challenge and an opportunity for lawyers. Compared to earlier periods in the evolution of EC competition law, this moment can be compared with the years which followed the adoption of the first EC Merger Regulation at the end of 1989, or the invigorated enforcement of the EC state aid rules in the early 1990s. In both cases, particularly young lawyers have found it rewarding to take an interest in these either totally new (mergers) or still legally underdeveloped (state aid) rules and issues. The same applies in my view to private enforcement of competition law today. With one important difference: As long as the EU maintains the existing system of judicial protection, private enforcement of EC competition law will have its centres of gravity in Member States; it will not be centralised in Brussels and in Luxembourg. In other words, private enforcement of EC competition law will be truly decentralised. The number of interested persons is therefore likely to be much greater than the relatively small group of mainly Brusselsbased lawyers who were interested in the earlier developments of EC competition law. If this analogy and my prognosis are correct, this book will be studied attentively by a large number of readers. In sum, it should have a brilliant future. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Brussels, 1 September 2007

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xii

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xiii

INTRODUCTION Private antitrust enforcement has been a very familiar subject in the United States. This was not the case in Europe until recently. If a book on private enforcement of EC competition law had been published 15 years ago, few in Europe would have understood its title, and perhaps fewer might have read it. There are many reasons for the current interest in such a subject. These may be seen from two angles: from the Community law angle and from the competition law angle. From the first angle, one can mention as explanations the development of the decentralised application of Community law, the maturity of the relationship between Community and national law, the increased inroads made by the Community into private law and, as always, the Court of Justice’s determination to safeguard the effectiveness of Community law and ever increase Community citizens’ effective judicial protection and their access to a court, in particular to the juges communautaires de droit commun. From the competition law angle, we can mention the steady establishment in Europe of a competition culture, the acquisition of a sufficient degree of confidence by the European Commission as antitrust enforcer, the realisation of the need to enforce the competition rules effectively and to punish competition law infringements severely, the will to bring in more agents for the enforcement of the Treaty competition rules, such as national competition authorities and courts, and ultimately the inevitable decentralisation of competition law enforcement in today’s Europe of 27 Member States. These two angles to a great extent characterise this study. This is not a book just about private antitrust enforcement, but rather about private enforcement of the Community competition rules before the Community courts of full jurisdiction, the courts of the Member States. There is no ambition to examine private antitrust enforcement from an economic point of view. This task is left to more suitable people who have the right expertise. There is equally no exhaustive covering of the specific mechanics of the system of private actions in Europe from the point of view of both substance and procedure. Such a task would be possible only if our system of private enforcement were a centralised or federal one, with common substantive and procedural rules and common courts, in the sense of the US federal circuit courts. At its current stage of development, however, Community law relies to a great degree on national legal systems. For this reason, a complete analysis of the phenomenon of private antitrust enforcement in Europe would necessitate 27 books of this kind. In short, the aim is to examine private enforcement of the Treaty competition rules as a Community law phenomenon in its developmental perspective. The application of EC competition law by civil courts, though not particularly developed, has not been a recent phenomenon. Indeed, the very first preliminary reference made by a national court to Luxembourg under the old Article 177 EEC, which was, according to witnesses, an event that was duly celebrated with champagne in the Grand Duchy at that time, was a competition case where EC competition law arose in the context of private litigation.1 1 Case 13/61 Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geus en Uitdenbogerd v Robert Bosch GmbH and Maatschappij tot voortzetting van de zaken der Firma Willem van Rijn [1962] ECR 45.

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xiv

xiv Introduction Of course, the mere application of the competition rules by national courts cannot be said to amount to a system of private antitrust enforcement. The very term ‘enforcement’ signifies an instrumental role for private actions in the sense of the private litigants themselves becoming actors in enhancing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the competition enforcement system. It is only very recently that private antitrust enforcement has appeared for the first time as a real enforcement mechanism, and thus as a meaningful complement to public enforcement. The way was opened by the modernisation and decentralisation reforms in the years 1999 to 2004 that have produced a new enforcement system for the twenty-first century. But it has also come as a consequence of ground-breaking rulings by the Court of Justice, which has extended the scope of remedies available to individuals by Community law to cover also individual civil liability. Modernisation and the advent of Regulation 1/2003 did not themselves energise private enforcement but rather offered the appropriate impetus and overall conditions, in perfect harmony with the Court of Justice’s far-sighted rulings, for the matter to be addressed both at the Community and national levels. What in 1999 seemed distant and Utopian in 2008 appears a reality that private firms, public authorities and the legal profession will have to take seriously into account. The publication in December 2005 of the Green Paper on damages actions by the European Commission concludes a long period of reflection and announces a new stage of development for private antitrust enforcement that is currently difficult to predict. At the same time, there are spill-over effects in the Member States, and one can indeed even speak of regulatory competition (Wettbewerb der Wettbewerbsordnungen) among the national competition enforcement systems in the creation of an optimal national system of antitrust enforcement, with particular emphasis on the role of private actions. This race to the top can be seen, for example, between the UK, German and French legal systems, where there were recently important reforms and where the enhancement of private antitrust actions figures centrally. The book’s first chapter attempts a definition and delimitation of private enforcement. The advantages of private enforcement are examined and the relevance of EC competition law’s objectives is also addressed. A related issue is the interplay between the protection of the public and private interests. Then, a basic proposition is private enforcement’s complementarity with, but also complete independence of, public enforcement in the Community context. The emphasis on independence is explained because of the current trend in Commission and national competition authority thinking to introduce rules of primacy or dependence, whereby decisions of public enforcers become binding on civil courts. While there would be no problem in introducing special evidentiary rules in the presence of public enforcement decisions, and thus facilitating the bringing of private claims in deserving cases, the conferment of a positive binding effect is a serious error made in competition law enforcement fora that are staffed only by competition law specialists who may miss the broader principles of private law as well as the fundamental exigencies of Community law and its decentralised application. The second chapter examines the decentralised application of the Treaty competition rules by national courts in an institutional and developmental perspective. There is a first part on the old system of enforcement and the role of national courts, which may now seem obsolete, yet it would be impossible to examine the position of national courts under the new system of enforcement without a historical introduction. Then the passage to the new decentralised system is analysed in detail: The 1999 White Paper on modernisation, the legal exception system under Article 81(3) EC, the ensuing discussions and negotiations,

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xv

Introduction xv and ultimately Regulation 1/2003 along with the Modernisation Package, not to forget the Court of Justice’s role, are all important items in today’s acquis. The chapter then examines the three pillars of the new system: the strengthening of the supremacy of Community over national competition law, the new institutional position of national courts, and the strengthening of the supremacy of Community over national proceedings. Peripherally, the role of national competition authorities is also addressed. Finally, the third chapter proceeds to examine the basic substantive and procedural aspects of EC private antitrust enforcement. It starts from an analysis of basic Community law principles that govern the enforcement of Community law by national courts. There is here a constitutional parameter: national courts adjudicate on rights granted directly by the Treaty to individuals who thus become agents for the Community interest. There is also a competition law effectiveness parameter: individuals can put into effect in private litigation rights that the competition rules provide for, thus becoming private attorneys general and increasing the efficiency of the whole system, while easing the burden on the public authorities which cannot be the sole enforcers. There is finally a judicial protection parameter: individuals can pursue rightful redress for wrongs committed. Again, private antitrust enforcement is seen throughout the third chapter primarily from the angle of Community law. It is an interesting development because it has offered a new paradigm for the decentralised application of Community law in general. The third chapter then makes a distinction between the substantive remedies available to litigants for violations of the Treaty competition rules, in particular the civil sanction of nullity, damages, injunctions, restitutionary and declaratory relief, and the procedural rules applicable. A basic proposition of this book is that de lege lata the substantive remedies themselves and their constitutive conditions are directly governed by Community law, while the more detailed executive-procedural rules are a matter of national law. Damages are of course the most important of these substantive remedies, and indeed most of the analysis is dedicated to them. An effort has been made throughout the book to refer to national developments, cases and authorities, at least in the majority of the 15 ‘old’ Member States. This reference is, however, by no means exhaustive, but rather aims to acquaint the reader with the common thrust of the Union’s basic legal systems and the way those systems interact with Community law in the decentralised application of EC competition law. An effort was also made to refer to some specific questions that arise in certain jurisdictions and that are not common to others. For example, specific reference has been made to the issues of ‘transient voidness’ and the in pari delicto principle in English law, to the protective scope theories in German law, and to the unique features of parens patriae civil actions instituted by the Minister of the Economy in French law. These ‘peculiarities’ are quite interesting and are a helpful reminder of the challenges of the decentralised civil enforcement of the Community competition rules ‘from Helsinki to Palermo’.2 2 This book does not deal with the application of the EC competition rules in the context of arbitration. Arbitration is of course the most usual forum or indeed the juge naturel of all significant international commercial contracts, so its importance cannot be ignored. Its exclusion, however, is a deliberate choice because the whole relationship between arbitration and EC competition law is quite specific and actually has a longer history in Europe than private enforcement itself, but also because, in the author’s view, arbitration cannot, strictly speaking, be said to amount to private enforcement. Arbitration is only a dispute resolution mechanism and arbitrators themselves are private judges whose task is to resolve a dispute that the parties have placed before them. They are not state organs and are not entrusted with the safeguarding of any public interest as such. Indeed, international arbitration lacks a ‘forum’, so it would not really make sense to speak of any specific public interest to be safeguarded by an international arbitral tribunal.

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xvi

xvi Introduction The law is stated as of 1 January 2008. The opinions expressed here do not represent the views of anybody other than the author. In all respects the usual disclaimer applies.

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxi

ABBREVIATIONS AC AG AG

All.ER Am J Comp L Antitrust Bull Antitrust LJ ATF AWD BB BC Int’l Comp LRev BER Berkeley J Int’l L BYU JPub.L CA CAT CCAT CDE ChD CLJ CMLR CMLRev Columbia JEL Com Ct Comp LJ CompLRev Contr & Impr Contr & Impr (Eur) Contr Conc Consomm CPR CYELS D. Dir Com Dir Comm Int Dir Pubbl Comp Eur Dir Un Eur Droits EBLR

Appeal Cases Advocate-General Die Aktiengesellschaft, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Aktienwesen, für deutsches, europäisches und internationales Unternehmens- und Kapitalmarktrecht All England Law Reports American Journal of Comparative Law The Antitrust Bulletin Antitrust Law Journal Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral Suisse Außenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebs-Beraters Der Betriebs-Berater Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Block Exemption Regulation(s) Berkeley Journal of International Law Bringham Young University Journal of Public Law Court of Appeal (England) Competition Appeal Tribunal (UK) Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal (UK) Cahiers de Droit Européen Chancery Division (England) Cambridge Law Journal Common Market Law Reports Common Market Law Review Columbia Journal of European Law Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (England) Competition Law Journal Competition Law Review Contratto e Impresa Contratto e Impresa, Europa Contrats-Concurrence-Consommation Civil Procedure Rules Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies Recueil Dalloz Diritto Comunitario e degli Scambi Internazionali Diritto del Commercio Internazionale Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea Droits, Revue Française de Théorie Juridique European Business Law Review

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxii

xxii Abbreviations EBOR EC ECC ECJ ECJ ECLR ECR Edin LRev EEA EEC EIPR ELF ELRev EPL ERPL ECN ECSC EU EUI EuLR Eur & Dir Priv EuR Euro CL EuZW EWCA Civ EWHC EWHC Comm EWS Fordham Int’l LJ Giurispr Comm Giust Civ GJ GP GRUR GRUR Int IBA ICCLR IJEL ILPr Intereconomics Int’l Lis Int TLR IR

European Business Organization Law Review European Community; Treaty Establishing the European Community European Commercial Cases European Competition Journal European Court of Justice European Competition Law Review European Court Reports The Edinburgh Law Review European Economic Area European Economic Community; Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community European Intellectual Property Review The European Legal Forum, Forum Iuris Communis Europae European Law Review European Public Law European Review of Private Law European Competition Network Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community European Union European University Institute European Law Reports Europa e Diritto Privato Europarecht European Current Law Europäisches Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil) England and Wales High Court England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Europäisches Wirtschafts und Steuerrecht, Betriebs-Berater für Europarecht Fordham International Law Journal Giurisprudenza Commerciale Giustizia Civile, Rivista Mensile di Giurisprudenza Gaseta Jurídica de la Unión Europea y de la Competencia Gazette du Palais Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil International Bar Association International Company and Commercial Law Review Irish Journal of European Law International Litigation Procedure Intereconomics, Review of European Economic Policy Il Corriere Giuridico, Supplemento di Documentazione e Discussione sul Diritto Giudiziario Transnazionale International Trade Law and Regulation Irish Law Reports

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxiii

Abbreviations xxiii JBL JBl JCB JCP JDI (Clunet) JdT JdT (Eur) JPIL JuS JZ LIEI LIDC LS Merc Conc Reg Minn LRev MLR NCA(s) Neth Int’l LR New Eng LRev NILQ NJ NJW NVwZ NwJ Int’l L & Bus OJLS QB RabelsZ RAE / LEA RDAI / IBLJ RDUE Rev Conc Consomm Rev Esp Der Eur RHDE RHDI Riv Dir Comm Riv Dir Eur Riv Dir Ind Riv Dir Int Priv Proc Riv It Dir Pubbl Com RIW RLC RMC RTDComm RTDE TEU

Journal of Business Law Juristische Blätter Jurisprudence Commerciale de Belgique La Semaine Juridique, Jurisclasseur Périodique, Edition Générale Journal du Droit International (Clunet) Journal des Tribunaux, Hebdomadaire Judiciaire Journal des Tribunaux, Droit Européen Journal of Private International Law Juristische Schulung Juristen Zeitung Legal Issues of European Integration Ligue Internationale du Droit de la Concurrence Legal Studies Mercato, Concorrenza, Regole Minnesota Law Review Modern Law Review National Competition Authority(ies) Netherlands International Law Review New England Law Review Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly Nederlandse Jurisprudentie Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, vereinigt mit Verwaltungsrechtsprechung Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Queen’s Bench Division (England) Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht Revue des Affaires Européennes / Law and European Affairs Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales/International Business Law Journal Revue du Droit de l’Union Européenne Revue de la Concurrence et de la Consommation, Droit et Marchés Revista Española de Derecho Europeo Revue Hellénique de Droit Européen Revue Hellénique de Droit International Rivista di Diritto Commerciale Rivista di Diritto Europeo Rivista di Diritto Industriale Rivista di Diritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale Rivista Italiana di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft Revue Lamy de la Concurrence, Droit-Economie-Régulation Revue du Marché Commun et de l’Union Européenne Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Commercial et de Droit Economique Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen Treaty on European Union

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxiv

xxiv Abbreviations Tul Eur Civ LForum UfR UKHL UNCITRAL Vand J Transnat’l L WBl Wisc Int’l LJ WRP WuW YEEL YEL YPIL ZEuP ZfRV ZHR ZSR/RDS ZVgl R Wiss ZWeR ZZPInt

Tulane European & Civil Law Forum Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen United Kingdom House of Lords United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Wirtschaftsrechtliche Blätter, Zeitschrift für österreiches und europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht Wisconsin International Law Journal Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb Yearbook of European Environmental Law Yearbook of European Law Yearbook of Private International Law Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung, Internationales Privatrecht und Europarecht Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht Zeitschrift für schweizerisches Recht / Revue de Droit Suisse Zeitschrift für die vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeßrecht International

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxv

TABLE OF CASES E UROPEAN C OURTS Court of Justice of the European Communities Case 13/61 Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geus en Uitdenbogerd v Robert Bosch GmbH and Maatschappij tot voortzetting van de zaken der Firma Willem van Rijn [1962] ECR 45................................................................................................... xiii, 4, 29, 37 Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastigen [1963] ECR 1 ........................................... 10, 49 Cases 56/64 and 58/64 Etablissements Consten SàRL and Grundig-Vergkaufs-GmbH v Commission [1965] ECR 299 ............................................................................................ 60 Case 56/65 Société La Technique Minière (LTM) v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (MBU) [1966] ECR 235............................................................................. 64, 150, 157, 248 Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm et al v Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR 1 ................. 66–67, 70, 74–5 Case 10/69 SA Portelange v SA Smith Corona Marchant International et al [1969] ECR 309 ............................................................................................................................151 Case 43/69 Brauerei A Bilger Söhne GmbH v Heinrich Jehle and Marta Jehle [1970] ECR 127...............................................................................................................................28 Case 48/69 Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Commission (Dyestuffs) [1972] ECR 619 ........................................................................................................................... 240 Case 9/70 Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein [1970] ECR 825 ......................................... 90 Case 6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc v Commission Case 22/71 Béguelin Import Co v SAGL Import Export [1971] ECR 949 ........................................................................................................................... 151 [1972] ECR 215...................................................................................................................... 38 Case 48/72 Brasserie de Haecht v Oscar Wilkin and Marie Janssen (II) [1973] ECR 77................................................................................................ 29, 135, 151–2 Case 127/73 Belgische Radio en Televisie (BRT) v SV SABAM and NV Fonior [1974] ECR 51 .............................................................................. 5, 10, 26, 28, 72, 145, 193 Case 43/75 Gabrielle Defrenne v Société Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aérienne (Sabena) [1976] ECR 455 ............................................................................................... 177 Case 63/75 SA Fonderies Roubaix Wattrelos v Société Nouvelle des Fonderies A Roux and Société des Fonderies JOT [1976] ECR 111 ....................................................... 33 Case 21/76 Handelskwekerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1735 ......................................................................................................................... 251 Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989 .................................................................. 147, 164, 172 Case 45/76 Comet BV v Produkschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043 ....... 147, 164, 172 Case 47/76 Alexis de Norre and Martine de Norre, née de Clercq v NV Brouwerij Concordia [1977] ECR 65 .................................................................................................. 31

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxvi

xxvi Table of Cases Case 28/77 Tepea BV v Commission [1978] ECR 1391 ..................................................... 158 Case 59/77 Etablissements A de Bloos SPRL v Société en Commandite par Actions Bouyer [1977] ECR 2359 ................................................................................................... 33 Case 177/78 Pigs and Bacon Commission v McCarren and Company Limited [1979] ECR 2161 ..........................................................................................................................198 Case 230/78 SpA Eridania-Zuccherifici nazionali and SpA Società Italiana per l’Industria degli Zuccheri v Minister of Agriculture and Forestry et al [1979] ECR 2749 ................... 92 Joined Cases 253/78 and 1/79 to 3/79 Procureur de la République v Giry and Guerlain et al [1980] ECR 2327 ................................................................................................. 31, 69 Case 22/79 Greenwich Film Production v Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique (SACEM) and Société des Editions Labrador [1979] ECR 3275 ......... 158, 160 Case 61/79 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Denkavit Italiana Srl [1980] ECR 1205...........................................................................................................................146 Case 68/79 Hans Just I/S v Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs [1980] ECR 501 ................ 201 Case 130/79 Express Dairy Foods Ltd v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1980] ECR 1887.............................................................................................................. 147 Case 792/79 Camera Care Ltd v Commission [1980] ECR 119 ......................................... 217 Case 31/80 NV L’Oréal and SA L’Oréal v PVBA ‘De Nieuwe AMCK’ [1980] ECR 3775 .................................................................................................................................... 34 Case 58/80 Dansk Supermarked A/S v A/S Imerco [1981] ECR 181 .................................. 177 Case 66/80 SpA International Chemical Corporation v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1981] ECR 1191............................................................................................ 125 Case 126/80 Maria Salonia v Giorgio Poidomani et al [1981] ECR 1563 ............................ 64 Case 158/80 Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Rewe-Markt Steffen v Hauptzollamt Kiel (Butter-buying Cruises) [1981] ECR 1805 .................................. 164–5 Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi et al and Ditta Italo Orlandi & Figlio and Ditta Vincenzo Divella v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1981] ECR 2735 ......... 154 Case 102/81 Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co KG and Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co KG [1982] ECR 1095 ............................................................................................... 94 Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità [1982] ECR 3415 ........................................ 126 Joined Cases 43/82 and 63/82 Vereniging ter Bevordering van het Vlaamse Boekwezen (VBVB) and Vereniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels (VBBB) v Commission [1984] ECR 19............................................................................................... 67 Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595...........................................................................................................147, 200, 226 Joined Cases 228/82 and 229/82 Ford of Europe Incorporated and Ford-Werke Aktiengesellschaft v Commission [1984] ECR 1129 ........................................................ 216 Case 319/82 Société de Vente de Ciments et Bétons de l’Est SA v Kerpen & Kerpen GmbH & Co KG [1983] ECR 4173 ................................................................................. 155 Case 14/83 Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891 ............................................................................................................. 165 Joined Cases 142/84 and 156/84 British-American Tobacco Company Ltd and RJ Reynolds Industries Inc v Commission [1987] ECR 4487.................................................. 37 Joined Cases 209/84 to 214/84 Criminal Proceedings against Lucas Asjes et al [1986] ECR 1425............................................................................................................................ 37

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxvii

Table of Cases xxvii Case 45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer eV v Commission [1987] ECR 405 ....................... 67 Joined Cases 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85 to 117/85 and 125/85 to 129/85 A Ahlström Osakeyhtiö et al v Commission (Woodpulp I) [1988] ECR 5193 ........... 240, 242 Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199...................... 113, 125 Joined Cases 331/85, 376/85 and 378/85 SA Les Fils de Jules Bianco and J Girard Fils SA v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects [1988] ECR 1099 .................... 201 Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbeverbs eV [1989] ECR 803 ................................................ 37 Case 145/86 Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v Adelheid Krieg [1988] ECR 645 ...... 134, 258 Case 53/87 Consorzio Italiano della Componentistica di Ricambio per Autoveicoli and Maxicar v Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA [1988] ECR 6039 ............................ 258 Case 189/87 Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co et al [1988] ECR 5565 ..................................................................................................... 251 Case C–2/88 Imm Criminal Proceedings against JJ Zwartveld et al [1990] ECR 3365 and 4405. .............................................................................................................................94 Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano [1989] ECR 1839 ........................ 76 Joined Cases 143/88 and C–92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen AG v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe and Zuckerfabrik Soest GmbH v Hauptzollamt Paderborn [1991] ECR I–415 .................................................................................................... 120, 148 Case C–177/88 Elisabeth Johanna Pacifica Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus [1990] ECR I–3941 ......................................... 165 Case C–220/88 Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank et al [1990] ECR I–49 ............................................................................................................. 251 Case C–106/89 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECR I–4135 ......................................................................................................... 179 Case C–213/89 Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd et al (I) [1990] ECR I–2433 ........................................................... 80, 133, 148–9, 165, 218 Case C–234/89 Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Bräu AG [1991] ECR I–935 .......................................................... 28, 30–1, 45, 49, 91, 94, 112–14, 135, 163 Case C–300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991] ECR I–2867 ............. 181 Joined Cases C–6/90 and C–9/90 Andrea Francovich et al v Italy [1991] ECR I–5357 ........................................................... 108, 182, 148–9, 166, 169, 171–3, 178–9, 209 Case C–41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I–1979......... 64 Joined Cases C–87/90, C–88/90 and C–89/90 Verholen et al v Sociale Verzekeringsbank Amsterdam [1991] ECR I–3757 ...................................................................................... 222 Case C–172/91 Volker Sonntag v Hans Waidmann, Elisabeth Waidmann and Stefan Waidmann [1993] ECR I–1963 ...................................................................................... 250 Joined Cases C–241/91 P and C–242/91 P Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1995] ECR I–743 .............................. 113 Case C–271/91 Helen Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (II) [1993] ECR I–4367 ...................................................................... 165 Case C–60/92 Otto BV v Postbank NV [1993] ECR I–5683 ................................................. 98 Case C–128/92 HJ Banks & Co Ltd v British Coal Corporation [1994] ECR I–1209 .......................................................................................... 116, 166–7, 171, 209 Case C–188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v Germany [1994] ECR I–833 ...... 125 Case C–250/92 Gøttrup-Klim ea Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA [1994] ECR I–5641................................................................................................. 28

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxviii

xxviii Table of Cases Case C–360/92 P The Publishers Association v Commission [1995] ECR I–23.................... 67 Case C–376/92 Metro-SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co KG v Cartier SA [1994] ECR I–15 ............................................................................................................................ 69 Joined Cases C–46/93 and C–48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany and Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd et al (III) [1996] ECR I–1029 ........................ 148, 165–7, 171, 173, 176, 182, 195, 198, 209–10, 213 Case C–68/93 Fiona Shevill et al v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I–415 ......................... 252 Case C–70/93 Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v ALD Auto-Leasing D GmbH [1995] ECR I–3439. ........................................................................................................................68 Case C–9/93 IHT Internationale Heiztechnik GmbH and Uwe Danziger v Ideal-Standard GmbH and Wabco Standard GmbH [1994] ECR I–2789 .............................................. 158 Case C–266/93 Bundeskartellamt v Volkswagen and VAG Leasing [1995] ECR I–3477................................................................................................................................. 69 Case C–312/93 Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout et Cie SCS v Belgium [1995] ECR I–4599 ...................................................................................................................... 223, 237 Joined Cases C–319/93, C–40/94 and C–224/94 Hendrik Evert Dijkstra et al v Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie et al [1995] ECR I–4471. .................................. 97, 114 Case C–364/93 Antonio Marinari v Lloyds Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Company [1995] ECR I–2719 ......................................................................................................... 251 Case C–415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal Club Liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman et al and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I–4921 ................ 177 Joined Cases C–427/93, C–429/93 and C–436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb et al v Paranova A/S [1996] ECR I–3457 .................................................................................. 227 Joined Cases C–430/93 and C–431/93 Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten [1995] ECR I–4705 ............................................................................................... 71, 223, 225, 237 Case C–5/94 Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd [1996] ECR I–2553......................................................................... 195 Case C–18/94 Barbara Hopkins et al v National Power plc and Powergen plc [1996] ECR I–2281 ...................................................................................................................... 116 Joined Cases C–178/94 to C–179/94 and C–188/94 to C–190/94 Dillenkofer et al v Germany [1996] ECR I–4845 ......................................................................................... 209 Case C–194/94 CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I–2201 .................................................................................................... 75, 179 Case C–72/95 Aannemersbedrijft PK Kraaijeveld BV v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland [1996] ECR I–5403 .................................................................................. 224 Case C–78/95 Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen v Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH [1996] ECR I–4943 .............................................................................................. 134 Case C–91/95 Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL) v Commission [1996] ECR I–5547........................................................ 46 Case C–188/95 Fantask A/S et al v Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) [1997] ECR I–6783. ..................................................................................................................... 173 Joined Cases C–192/95 to C–218/95 Sté Comateb et al v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects [1997] ECR I–165 ...................................................................... 173, 200 Case C–242/95 GT-Link A/S v De Danske Statsbaner [1997] ECR I–4349 ............................................................................................. 165, 176, 193, 227

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxix

Table of Cases xxix Case C–261/95 Rosalba Palmisani v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) [1997] ECR I–4025 .......................................................................................................... 147 Case C–282/95 P Guérin Automobiles v Commission [1996] ECR I–1503 ............... 165, 193 Joined Cases C–215/96 and C–216/96 Carlo Bagnasco et al v Banca Popolare di Novara Scarl and Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA [1999] ECR I–135 .......................................................................................................................... 64 Case C–343/96 Dilexport Srl v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1999] ECR I–579 ........................................................................................................................226 Case C–367/96 Alexandros Kefalas et al v Elliniko Dimosio and Organismos Oikonomikis Anasygkrotisis Epicheiriseon [1998] ECR I–2843 ..................................... 198 Joined Cases C–369/96 and C–376/96 Criminal Proceedings against Jean-Claude Arblade et al [1999] ECR I–8453 .................................................................................... 241 Case C–119/97 P UFEX (ex SFEI) et al v Commission [1999] ECR I–1341 ...................... 229 Case C–126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I–3055. .........................................................................149–50, 224–5, 237–8, 241, 257 Case C–269/97 Commission v Council [2000] ECR I–2257 ............................................. 181 Case C–373/97 Dionisios Diamantis v Elliniko Dimosio and Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE [2000] ECR I–1705 ....................................................... 198 Case C–7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski [2000] ECR I–1935 ............................ 134 Case C–38/98 SA Régie Nationale des Usines Renault v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento [2000] ECR I–2973.................................................................................. 134, 258 Joined Cases C–174/98 and C–189/98 The Netherlands and Gerard van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR I–1 ..................................................................................... 95, 106 Case C–195/98 Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund and Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Austria [2000] ECR I–10497 ............................................................................ 234 Joined Cases C–240/98 to C–244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rocío Murciano Quintero and Salvat Editores SA v José M Sanchez Alcón Prades et al [2000] ECR I–4941 ..................................................................................................................... 154 Case C–281/98 Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I–4139 ......................................................................................................................177 Case C–344/98 Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd [2000] ECR I–11369 ................................................................... 16, 29, 36, 78, 97, 112–15, 116–8, 120–4, 126–30, 132, 135, 137–9, 229 Case C–381/98 Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc [2000] ECR I–9305 ......................................................................................................... 239, 248–9 Joined Cases C–397/98 and C–410/98 Metallgesellschaft Ltd, Hoechst AG and Hoechst UK Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney General [2001] ECR I–1727 ......................................................................................... 173, 242, 248 Case C–110/99 Emsland Stärke GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [2000] ECR I–11569 ....................................................................................................................199 Joined Cases C–238/99, C–244/99, C–245/99, C–247/99, C–250/99 to C–252/99 and C–254/99 Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM) et al v Commission [2002] ECR I–8375 ......................................................................................................... 197 Case C–340/99 TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiane SpA et al [2001] ECR I–4109 ................ 227 Case C–453/99 Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I–6297........ 11, 14, 122, 149–51 162–74, 175, 176–90, 192–5, 197–8, 203, 220, 224–5, 244, 247–8, 250 254

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxx

xxx Table of Cases Case C–472/99 Clean Car Autoservice GmbH v Stadt Wien and Austria [2001] ECR I–9687 ..................................................................................................................... 235 Case C–62/00 Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [2002] ECR I–6325 .......................................................................................................................173 Case C–129/00 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I–14637 .............................. 103, 136, 200–1 Case C–253/00 Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA and Superior Fruiticola SA v Frumar Ltd and Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd [2002] ECR I–7289 ....................................... 177–8 Case C–453/00 Kühne & Heitz NV v Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren [2004] ECR I–837 ...........................................................................................................25, 131, 133 Case C–473/00 Cofidis SA v Jean-Louis Fredout [2002] ECR I–10875 ............................. 154 Case C–147/01 Weber’s Wine World Handels-GmbH et al v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien [2003] ECR I–11365 ................................ 173, 200–1 Case C–63/01 Samuel Sidney Evans v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2003] ECR I–14447 ....... 237 Case C–198/01 CIF Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato [2003] ECR I–8055 ................................................................ 76 Case C–211/01 Commission v Council [2003] ECR I–8913 .............................................. 181 Case C–224/01 Gerhard Köbler v Austria [2003] ECR I–10239.......................... 26, 103, 108, 130–1, 196, 198 Joined Cases C–264/01, C–306/01, C–354/01 and C–355/01 AOK Bundesverband et al v Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes et al [2004] ECR I–2493 ..................................... 218–9 Case C–276/01 Proceedings against Joachim Steffensen [2003] ECR I–3735 .................... 227 Case C–359/01 P British Sugar plc v Commission [2004] ECR I–4933 ................................ 64 Case C–418/01 IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co KG [2004] ECR I–5039 .......................................................................................................... 124 Case C–481/01 P(R) NDC Health Corporation and NDC Health GmbH & Co KG v IMS Health Inc [2001] ECR I–3401 ................................................................... 14 Case C–116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I–14693 ........................... 255 Case C–159/02 Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit et al [2004] ECR I–3565 ......................................................................................................................255 Case C–201/02 The Queen ex parte Delena Wells v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2004] ECR I–723 ................................................... 147 Case C–281/02 Andrew Owusu v NB Jackson, trading as ‘Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas’ et al [2005] ECR I–1383 ...................................................................................... 255 Case C–70/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I–7999 .................................................... 240 Case C–105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285 ............. 120 Case C–173/03 Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Italy [2006] ECR I–5177 .................... 196 Joined Cases C–346/03 and C–529/03 Giuseppe Atzeni et al v Regione autonoma della Sardegna [2006] ECR I–1875.................................................................................. 125 Case C–402/03 Skov Æg v Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S v Jette Mikkelsen and Michael Due Nielsen [2006] ECR I–199 ........................................ 205 Case C–425/03 Provvidenza Regio v AXA Assicurazioni SpA, Order of 19 October 2004, unpublished ....................................................................................... 174 Joined Cases C–438/03, C–439/03, C–509/03 and C–2/04 Antonio Cannito et al v Fondiaria Assicurazioni SpA et al, Order [2004] ECR I–1605 ...................................... 174 Joined Cases C–453/03, C–11/04, C–12/04 and C–194/04 The Queen ex parte ABNA Ltd et al v Secretary of State for Health and Food Standards Agency, Fratelli Martini

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxxi

Table of Cases xxxi & C SpA et al v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali et al, and Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi) v Productschap Diervoeder [2005] ECR I–10423 .................................................................................................................... 126 Case C–461/03 Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit [2005] ECR I–10513 ........................................................... 126 Case C–539/03 Roche Nederland BV et al v Frederick Primus and Milton Goldenberg [2006] ECR I–6535 ......................................................................................................... 253 Joined Cases C–94/04 and C–202/04 Federico Cipolla v Rosaria Fazari (née Portolese) and Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte v Roberto Meloni [2006] ECR I–11421 .......................................................................................................... 63 Case C–125/04 Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier v Transorient—Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA [2005] ECR I–923 .................................................................................... 94 Case C–127/04 Declan O’Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd and Sanofi Pasteur SA [2006] ECR I–1313 ......................................................................................................... 205 Case C–234/04 Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank & Schick GmbH [2006] ECR I–2585.......... 133 Case C–255/04 Commission v France [2006] ECR I–5251 ........................................ 176, 237 Joined Cases C–295/04 to C–298/04 Vincenzo Manfredi et al v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA et al [2006] ECR I–6619 ................................... 151–2, 154, 174–6, 182, 192–3, 195, 209–10, 213–4, 220, 224–5, 238, 241, 244, 247–8, 250 Joined Cases C–392/04 and C–422/04 i-21 Germany GmbH and Arcor AG & Co KG v Germany [2006] ECR I–8559 ........................................................................... 133 Case C–526/04 Laboratoires Boiron SA v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) de Lyon [2006] ECR I–7529 ....... 227 Case C–103/05 Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH [2006] ECR I–6827. ......................................................................................................... 253 Case C–119/05 Ministero dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’Artigianato v Lucchini SpA, Judgment of 18 July 2007, not yet reported........................................ 133–4 Joined Cases C–222/05 to C–2225/05 J van der Weerd et al v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Judgment of 7 June 2007, not yet reported ..................... 154 Case C–238/05 ASNEF-EQUIFAX, Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, SL and Administración del Estado v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC) [2006] ECR I–11125 ....................................................... 73, 224–5 Joined Cases C–376/05 and C–377/05 A Brünsteiner GmbH and Autohaus Hilgert GmbH v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) [2006] ECR I–11383 ............................. 53 Case C–421/05 City Motors Groep NV v Citroën Belux NV [2007] ECR I–659 ............... 175 Case C–432/05 Unibet (London) Ltd and Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern [2007] ECR I–2271 ................................................................................ 164 Case C–438/05 The International Transport Workers’ Federation and The Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti, Judgment of 11 December 2007, not yet reported ...................................................................... 172, 203

Court of First Instance of the European Communities Case T–51/89 Tetra Pak Rausing SA v Commission [1990] ECR II–309 ............................. 26 Case T–66/89 Publishers Association v Commission [1992] ECR-II–1995........................... 67

(A) Komninos Prelims

14/5/08

09:09

Page xxxii

xxxii Table of Cases Case T–69/89 Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) v Commission [1991] ECR II–485................. 113 Case T–76/89 Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1991] ECR II–575........................................................................................................................113 Case T–24/90 Automec Srl v Commission (II) [1992] ECR II–2223 ....................... 12, 36, 45, 94, 163, 165, 172, 216–7 Case T–34/92 Fiatagri and New Holland Ford v Commission [1994] ECR II–905...... 60, 241 Case T–12/93 Comité Central d’Entreprise de la Société Anonyme Vittel et al v Commission [1995] ECR II–1247 ................................................................................... 193 Case