Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 25 May 1988

1 Translated from the French.

2 OJ L 85, 26. 3. 1985, p. 1.

3 Apart from the argument concerning the Free Trade Agreement concluded with Finland, which is specific to Case 89/85, the applicants in that case, like most of the other applicants, challenge the Commission's jurisdiction to apply the Community rules of competition solely on the basis of the doctrine known as the location of the effects. I would point out, however, that the applicant in Case 104/85 challenged the Commission's jurisdiction only at the hearing, and the applicant in Case 116/85 did not raise any objections to the Commission's jurisdiction, explaining in a letter of 29 October 1987 its initial inaction by reference to the consideration that the Court would have to examine that issue of its own motion, although it concurred on that point with the arguments submitted by the other applicants. At the hearing it reaffirmed its position and deferred to the wisdom of the Court on that issue. The applicant in Case 117/85 did not raise the objection that the Court lacked jurisdiction and, at the hearing, endorsed the arguments of the other applicants.

4 Paragraph 79 of the contested decision.

5 G. Bernini: Les règles de concurrence in Trente ans de droit communautaire, Office des publications officielles des Communautés européennes, 1982, p. 345, in particular p. 375. B. Goldman: Les champs d'application territoriale des lois sur la concurrence, RCADI, 1969 (III), p. 635, in particular p. 676 et seq., and Les effets juridiques extraterritoriaux de la politique de la concurrence, RMC, 1972, p. 612, in particular pp. 614 and 615. J. M. Bischoff and R. Kovar: L'application du droit communautaire de la concurrence aux entreprises établies à l'extérieur de la Communauté, JDI (Clunet), 1975, in particular p. 684. T. Schapira, G. Le Tallec, J.-B. Biaise: Droit européen des affaires, PUF, Themis, 1984, p. 245. I. Mégret, J.-V. Louis, D. Vignes and M. Waelbroeck: Le droit de la Communauté économique européenne, Vol. 4: Concurrence, éditions de l'université de Bruxelles, 1972, pp. 110 and 111. J. Soufflet: La compétence extraterritoriale du droit de la concurrence de la communauté économique européenne, JDI (Clunet), 1971, p. 487, in particular p. 491.

6 L. Focsaneaunu: Pour objet ou pour effect, RMC, 1966, p. 862.

7 Case 48/69 imperial Chemical Industries [1972] ECR 619; Case 52/69 /. R. Geigy AC [1972] ECR 787; Case 53/69 Sandoz AG [1972] ECR 845.

8 See J.-M. Bisschoff and R. Kovar, supra, p. 684.

9 B. Goldman: International Law Association, Report of the Uth Conference, New York, 1972, p. 128.

10 Judgment of 25 November 1971 in Case 22/71 [1971] ECR 949, paragraph 11 of the decision.

11 Judgment of 12 December 1974 in Case 36/74 [1974] ECR 1405, paragraph 28 of the decision, emphasis added.

12 Judgment of 14 July 1972 in Cae 52/69 [1972] ECR 787, at p. 826.

13 Judgment of 21 February 1973 in Case 6/62 [1973] ECR 215, at p. 241.

14 P. Delannay: Observations sous l'arrêt 36/74, Walrave et Koch, CDE, 1976, p. 209, in particular p. 224.

15 See, for instance, R. Higgins: The legal bases of jurisdiction, in C.J. Olmstead (Ed.): Extraterritorial application of laws and responses thereto, Oxford, ILA and ECS, 1984, p. 3.

16 Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions, Series AJ 10.

17 Ibid., p. 19.

18 Ibid, p. 18.

19 Internationa] Court of Justice: Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, 1970, p. 65, at p. 105.

20 Ibid., p. 23.

21 Ibid., p. 30.

22 M. Akehurst: Juńtdiction in international law, BYIL, 1972-73, p. 145, in particular pp. 195 and 196; B. Goldman : Les champs d'application territoriale des lois sur la concurrence, RCADI, 1969 (III), p. 635, in particular p. 701.

23 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mayras in Cases 48, 52 and 53/69, cited above, [1972] ECR 665, at p. 694.

24 P. Julliard: L'application extraterritoriale de la loi économique in L'application extraterritoriale du droit économique, Cahiers du Cedin, supra, p. 13, in particular p. 24.

25 In that regard, P. Demaret writes: The Lotus judgment was given with the smallest possible majority. But the dictum cited above corresponds to the true sute of international affairs as it was in 1927 and undoubtedly still is today', in L'extraterritorialité des lois et les relations transatlantiques: une question de droit ou de diplomatie? CDE, 1985, p. 1, in particular p. 26.

26 B. Stern: Quelques observations sur les relies internationales relatives à l'application extraterritoriale du droit, AFDI, 1986, p. 7, in particular p. 11.

27 Ibid.

28 See, for instance, J. R. Atwood: Blocking statutes and sovereign compulsion: recent developments and the proposed Restatement, in B. E. Hawk, (Ed): Antitrust and trade policies in the United States and the European Community, Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York, Matthew Bender, 1986, Chapter 16, p. 327. L. Collins: Blocking and clawback statutes: the United Kingdom approach, Journal of business law, 1986, pp. 372 and 452.

29 Supra, p. 18.

30 B. Goldman and A. Lyon-Caen: Droit commercial européen, Dalloz, 4th edition, 1983, p. 886.

31 B. Goldman: Observations sur les arrêts Matières colorantes, JDI (Clunet), 1973, p. 935.

32 [1972] ECR 665, at. p. 701.

33 213 US 347 (1909).

34 148 F. 2d 416 (1945).

35 A. D. Neale and M. L. Stephens: International business and national jurisdiction, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1988, p. 167.

36 1965, Trade cases, paragraph 71352; 1963, Trade cases, paragraph 70600.

37 See A. D. Neale and M. L. Stephens, supra, p. 167.

38 549 F. 2d 597 (9 Cir. 1977).

39 595 F. 2d 1287 (3 Cir. 1979).

40 A. D. Neale and M. L. Stephens, supra, p. 177.

41 731 F. 2d 909 (DC. Cir. 1984); Judge Wilkey has also criticized the judicial balancing of interests in: American antitrust: adjusting conflicts with other legal systems, published in Private investors abroad, New York, Matthew Bender, 1985, cited by A. D. Neale and M. L. Stephens, supra, p. 179, Note 14.

42 Ibid., p. 78.

43 Ibid., p. 80.

44 Ibid., p. 80.

45 Ibid., pp. 83 and 84.

46 J. P. Griffin: Possible resolutions of international disputes over enforcement of US antitrust laws, 18, Stanford journal of international law. Issue 2, 1982, cited by A. D. Neale and M. L. Stephens, supra, p. 76, note 14.

47 F.A. Mann: The doctrine of international jurisdiction revisited after twenty years, RCADI, 1984 (III), p. 12, in particular pp. 30 and 31.

48 F. A. Mann, ibid., pp. 87 and 88.

49 Supra, RCADI, 1964, p. 126.

50 P. Weil: L'application extraterritoriale du droit économique, Cahiers de Cedin, Montchrestien, 1987, p. 11.

51 R. Y. Jennings: Extraterritorial jurisdiction and the United States antitrust laws, BYIL, 1957, p. 146, in particular p. 153.

52 F.A.Mann: The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law, RCADI, 1964, p. 7, in particular p. 45.

53 Ibid., p. 44.

54 Ibid., p. 49.

55 Ibid., p. 104.

56 In particular, M. Akehurst, supra, p. 198.

57 Ibid., p. 201.

58 P. Julliard: Application extraterritoriale de la loi économique in L'application extraterritoriale du droit économique, supra, p. 13, in particular p. 31.

59 B. Stern, supra, p. 15.

60 L. Idot: Le contrôle des pratiques restrictives de concurrence dans les échanges internationaux, Université de droit, d'économie et des sciences sociales de Paris (Paris II), thèse, 1981, ronéo, in particular p. 89 et. seq.

61 J. M. Bischoff and R. Kovar, supra, p. 700.

62 P. Eeckman: L'application de l'article 85 du traité de Rome aux ententes étrangères à la CEĶ mais causant des restrictions à la concurrence à l'intérieur du marché commun, RCDIP, 1965, p. 499, in particular p. 519.

63 P. Demaret, supra, p. 33.

64 J. Mégret, J.-V. Louis, D. Vignes and M. Waelbroeck: Le droit de ta Communauté économique européenne. Editions de l'université de Bruxelles, 1972, vol. 4, Concurrence, p. 20.

65 Ibid., p. 21.

66 B. Goldman and A. Lyon-Caen : Droit commerciai européen, Dalloz, 4th edition, p. 551.

67 J. M. Bischoff and R. Kovar, supra, in particular p. 706 et seq.

68 (1972) ECR 665, al pp. 699 and 700.

69 Ibid., p. 702.

70 The International Law Association: Report of the 55th Conference held in New York, 21 August to 26 August 1972, p. 138.

71 Ibid., p. 175.

72 On the concept of international comity, see L. Oppenheim : International Law, 8th edition, H. Lauterpacht, Longmans, Green and Co., Vol. 1, p. 33 et seq.; E. Nys: Le droit international, 2nd edition, 1904, Vol. 1, p. 201 et sea.; H. E. Yntema: The comity doctrine, Michigan law review, 1966-67, Vol. 65, p. 1.

73 Judgment of 29 October 1980 in Case 209/78 [1980] ECR 3125, emphasis added; a similar solution was adopted by the Court in its judgment of 8 November 1983 in Case 96/82 NVIAZ v Commission (1983) ECR 3369.

74 Judgment of 27 January 1987 in Case 45/85 Verband der Sachvenicherer[1987] ECR 405, paragraph 32.

75 Application of competition laws to foreign conduct: appropriate resolution of jurisdictional issues, conference held at the Fordham Corporate Law Institute on 3 and 4 October 1985.

76 Agreement concluded on 5 October 1973 (OJ L 328, 28.11.1973, p. 17.

77 Judgment of 13 February 1979 in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche [1979] ECR 461 ; judgment of 31 May 1979 in Case 22/78 Hugin [1979] ECR 1869.

78 See, in particular, Roth: Die Wettbewerbsregeln in den Freihandelsabkommen der EWG, in Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, 1978, p. 423; John Temple Lange: European Community antidumping and competition laws, their actual and potential application to EFTA countries, Tidsikrift for Rettsvitenskap, 3/87, p. 590.

79 H. Schröter (in Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag __ Groeben), from Boeckl, Thiesing, Ehlermann, Vol. 1, p. 919) considers that although the practical question of the direct effect of the competition rules contained in free trade agreements has not arisen so far, that can be explained by the fact that a large number of the agreements, decisions and concerted practices which are incompatible with the proper functioning of free trade agreements also come within the scope of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty. See also Hirsch (in L'accord entre la Suisse et la CEE confire-t-il des droits aux particuliers?, CDE, 1974, p. 194) who adopts precisely the same approach from the point of view of the application of the Swiss anti-cartel provisions.

80 Judgment of 9 February 1982 in Case 270/80 [1982] ECR

81 Judgment of 13 February 1969 in Case 14/68 [1969] ECR

82 March Hunnings: A more permissive provision, Enforceability of the EECEFTA Free Trade Agreements, 2 EL Rev., 1977, p. 63.

83 Judgment of 7 November 1985 in Case 53/84 [1985] ECR 3595.