Opinion of Mr Kirschner Judge in the Court of First Instance delivered on 21 February 1990

1 Original language: German.

2 OJ 1988 L 319, p. 1; corrected version in OJ 1989 C 215, p. 1.

3 Hereinafter all articles cited without any reference to the relevant treaty are articles of the EEC Treaty.

4 Regulation No 2349/84 (OJ 1984 L 219, p. 15).

5 Decision 88/501/EEC (OJ 1988 L 272, p. 27).

6 See the judgments in Case 13/61 Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geus en Uidenbogerd v Robert Bosch GmbH [1962] ECR 45, at p. 52 and in Joined Cases 209/84 to 213/84 Ministère public v Asjes and Others [1986] ECR 1425, at p. 1469.

7 Judgment in Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, at p. 298.

8 Judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission f 1979] ECR 461, ai p. 541

9 Judgment in Case 6/72 Europemballage Corporation ana Continental Can Company v Commission [1973] ECR 215, at p. 246, paragraph 25.

10 The question is contested in the literature: see for example Deringer: EWG-Wettbewerbsrecht, Kommentar, paragraph 8 on Article 85(3); aliter Koch in Grabitz: Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag, paragraph 66 preceding Article 85.

11 Judgment of 20 March 1957, Geitling v High Authority, Case 2/56, [1957 and 1958] ECR 3.

12 OJ, English Special Edition, 1965-66, p. 35.

13 Judgment in Case 32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 563, at p. 592 (French version; the reference for the English version is [1966] ECR 389, at p. 407).

14 Case 85/76, cited above, at p. 550, paragraph 116; likewise the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Reischl in Case 7/82 Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten v Commission [1983] ECR 483, at p. 525.

15 Judgment in Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Another v Zentrale zu Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Į1989] ECR 803, at p. 849, paragraph 37 et seq.

16 Judgment in Case 395/87 Ministère public v Tournier [1989] ECR 2521

17 Case 6/72, cited above, at p. 245, paragraph 25.

18 Judgment in Case 172/80 Zucbner v Bayerische Veremsbank [1981] ECR 2021, at p. 2030 et seq., paragraph 10.

19 Case 6/72 Continental Can, cited above, at n. 246, paragraph 25; see also the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Roemer, cited above, at p. 257.

20 Opinion of 28 April 1988 in Case 66/86, paragraph 41.

21 Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche, cited above, at p. 550, paragraph 116.

22 Second Opinion, of 17 January 1989, of Mr Advocate General Lenz in Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed and Another v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs, paragraph 18.

23 See inter alia the Opinion of 28 April 1988 of Advocate General Lenz in Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed, paragraph 41: Even a Council regulation which categorized certain modes of conduct as compatible with Article 86 would have to be assessed against the criterion of Article 86.

24 Judgment in Case 66/86, ECR 803, at p. 849, paragraph 37.

25 OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87.

26 Mestmäcker: Europäisches Wettbewerhsrecht, 1974, p. 357.

27 See Hönn: Die Anwendbarkeit dei Artikeli 86 EWG-Vertrag bei Kartellen und vertikalen Wettbewerbi- beichränkungen, Diss. Frankfurt, 1969, p. 67, who, however, comes to a different conclusion.

28 The effects of negative clearance before national courts are disputed. See, for example, M. Waelbroeck: Judicial review of Commission action in competition matters, Annual Proceedingi of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, 1983, pp. 179, 203 et seq., with further references.

29 The Commission must take into account the increase in the degree of concentration on the market when considering an application for the renewal of an individual exemption. Judgment in Case 43/85 Ancides v Commission [1987] ECR 3131, at p. 3154, paragraph 13.

30 Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 302); Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 4); Regulation (EEC) 3975/87 (OJ 1987 L 374, p. 1).

31 Article 12 of Regulation No 1017/68 (excluding crisis cartels under Article 6 of the regulation), Article 12 of Regulation No 4056/86 and Article 5 of Regulation No 3975/87.

32 Article 12(3).

33 Ibidem.

34 Article 13 of Regulation No 1017/68, Article 6 of Regulation No 3975/87 and Article 13 of Regulation No 4056/86.

35 Wertheimer: Het adagium van artikel 86, EEG: Quod licet bovi non licet jovi, in Europees Kartelrecht Anno 1980, p. 143, at p. 212.

36 Regulation No 67/67/EEC (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 10), since replaced by Regulations (EEC) Nos 1983/83 (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 1), and 1984/83 (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5); Regulations (EEC) Nos 2349/84 (OJ 1984 L 219, p. 15), 123/85 (OJ 1985 L 15, p. 16), 4087/88 (OJ 1988 L 359, p. 46) and 556/89 (OJ 1989 L 61, p. 1).

37 Paragraph 10 of the preamble, Article 3(b) and Article 5.

38 Paragraph 15 of the preamble to Regulation No 1983/83 and paragraph 23 of the preamble to Regulation No 1984/83.

39 Regulation (EEC) No 2821/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (III), p. 1032), Regulation (EEC) No 417/85 (OJ 1985 L 53, p. 1): Regulation (EEC) No 418/85 (OJ 1985 L 53, p 5).

40 Article 3 of Regulation No 417/85; Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation No 418/85 (market share only).

41 OJ 1987 L 374, p. 9.

42 Regulations (EEC) Nos 2671/88, 2672/88 and 2673/88 (OJ 1988 L 239, pp. 9, 13 and 17).

43 Article 7 of Regulation No 2671/88, Article 11 of Regulation No 2672/88 and Article 4 of Regulation No 2673/88

44 Such a decision may be adopted under Article 4 of Regulation No 3975/87.

45 OJ 1986 L 378, p. 4.

46 Regulations Nos 1983/83 and 1984/83.

47 For a different opinion, see Wiedemann: Kommentar zu den Grutppenfieistellungsverordnungen des EWG-Kartellrechts. Vol. 1, 1989, Allgemeiner Teil, p. 120 ei seq., paragraphs 371 and 373, on the Commission decision contested in these proceedings.

48 Koch, in Grabitz: Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag, paragraphs 192 and 156, on Article 85 of the EEC Treaty.

49 See Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87.

50 Judgment in Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen V Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs, paragraphs 37 and 42.

51 For example, the judgments in Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, cited above, at P 244 el seq., in Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission [1974] ECR 223, at p 253, in Case 13/77 Inno v ATAB [1977] ECR 2115, at p 2145, paragraph 28 et seq , in Case 27/76 United Brandi v Commission, cited above, at p. 286, paragraph 63 et seq. and in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, p 552, paragraph 125 and p. 554, paragraph 132.

52 Paragraph 46 of the contested decision.

53 Cited above, at p. 245, paragraph 26. However, the Commission decision was annulled because it failed sufficiently to define the relevant market.

54 Temple Lang: Monopolization and the definition of abus e of a dominant position under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty, CMLR 1979, p.345, at p. 351

55 Judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, at p. 541, paragraph 91.

56 Judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche, cited above; however, a different view is taken in some academic writings, e. g. Koch, in Grabitz: Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag, paragraph 45 et seq., on Article 86.

57 See the judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche, cited above, at p. 551, paragraph 120.

58 Judgment in Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461, at p. 3511, paragraph 57.

59 Judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, at p. 541, paragraph 91; likewise, the judgments in Case 31/80 L'Oréal v De Nieuwe AMCK (1980] ECR 3775, at p. 3794, paragraph 27 and in Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission, cited above, at p. 3514, paragraph 70.

60 Judgment in Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, cited above, at p. 246, paragraph 26.

61 For a fundamental appraisal of this topic see Vogel in Droit de la concurrence et concentration économique, Paris, 1988, p 154 et seq.

62 Judgment in Case 127/73 Belgische Radio en Televisie and Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs v Sabam and Finior [1974] ECR 313, at p. 316 et seq.; however, the conduct in issue in that case relates to the example given in indent (a) of the second paragraph of Article 86.

63 Judgment in Joined Cases 40 to 48, 50, 54 to 56, 111, 113 and 114/73 Cooperatieve vereniging Suiker Unie UA and Others v Commission (1975] ECR 1663, at p. 2002, paragraph 486.

64 Judgment in Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission, cited above, at p. 298.

65 Judgment in Case 395/87 Ministère public v Tournier, paragraph 45, concerning the example set out in indent (a) of the second paragraph of Article 86.

66 Cited above, paragraph 31.

67 Droit de la concurrence et concentration économique, p. 155, footnote 1.

68 Judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, at p. 551, paragraph 120.

69 For example, the judgments in Case 24/67 Parke, Davis v Centra/arm [1968] ECR 55, at p. 71 et seq. (patent) and in Case 102/77 Hoffmann-La Roche v Centra/arm (1978] ECR 1139, at p. 1168 (trademark),

70 Judgment in Case 53/87 CICR and Maxicar v Renault [1988] ECR 6039, at p 6072, paragraph 15.

71 In like manner to the established case-law of the Court of Justice on the difference between the existence and the exercise of industrial property rights for the purposes of the application of Article 36; see, for example, the judgment in Case 15/74 Centra/ann v Sterling Drug [1974] ECR 1147

72 Judgment in Case 24/67 Parke, Davis v Centrafarm, cited above, at p 72

73 Judgment in Case 53/87 CICR and Maxicar v Renault, citea above, paragraph 16, likewise the judgment in Case 238/87 Volvo v Veng [1988] ECR 6211, paragraph 9

74 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo In Case 53/87 CICR and Maxicar v Renault, cited above, paragraph 60

75 Likewise m Case 238/87 Volvo v Veng, referred to above

76 Judgment in Case 19/84 Pharmon v Hoechst [1985] ECR 2281, at p 2298, paragraph 26

77 See paragraphs 46 and 47 of the contested decision.

78 OJ 1988 L 319, p. 1; corrected version in OJ 1989 C 215, p. 1.

79 Paragraphs 11 and 12 in the preamble to Regulation No 2349/84.

80 See the judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, at p. 549, paragraph 115.

81 For a detailed account of the application of the two principles in the sphere of competition law, see David Edward: Constitutional rules of Community law in EEC competition cases, scheduled for publication in the Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, 1989, p. 28 et seq. of the manuscript.

82 See, for example, the judgments in Joined Cases 212 to 217/80 Amministrazione delle finanze v Salumi [1981] ECR 2735, at p. 2751, paragraph 10 and in Case 120/86 Muldet (19881 ECR 2321, at p 2352 et seq., paragraph 24 et seq.; David Edward, op. cit.

83 See, for example, the judgment in Case 24/86 Blatzol [19881 ECR 379, at p. 405 ct seq , paragraph 25 et seq., and the fundamental judgment in Case 43/75 Defienne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455, at p 480, paragraph 69 et seq.

84 Judgment in Case 13/61 Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geus en Uitdenbogerd v Robert Bosch GmbH, cited above, at p. 52.

85 Judgment in Joined Cases 209/84 to 213/84 Ministère public v Asjei, cited above, ECR 1425, at p. 1466 et seq.; judgment in Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed, paragraph 20 et seq.

86 See, for example, Sharpston: Legitimate expectations and economic reality, scheduled for publication in European Law Review, 1990, p. 76 of the manuscript; judgment in Case 120/86 Mulder, cited above.

87 Judgment in Joined Cases 42/59 and 49/59 Snutpat v High Authority [1961] ECR 53, at p. 87

88 Judgment in Joined Cases 42/59 and 49/59 Snutpat v High Authority [1961] ECR 53, at p. 87

89 In this sense, see also Wiedemann: Kommentar zu den Gruppenfreistellungsverordnungen des EWG-Kartellrechts, Vol. 1, 1989, Allgemeiner Teil, p. 122, paragraph 373.

90 See, for example, Anicle 7 of Regulation No 19/65.

91 A different view is taken by Wiedemann, op. cit., p. 123, paragraph 373.

92 Judgment in Case 322/81 Michelin v Commisson, cited above, at p 3511, paragraph 57.

93 Vogel, op. cit., p. 143; see also the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Roemer in Case 6/72 Enropemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] ECR 256, cited above.

94 A detailed appraisal is to be found in Gyselen: Abuse of monopoly power within the meaning of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty: Recent developments, scheduled for publication in the Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, 1989, p. 27 el seq. of the manuscript.

95 Likewise the judgment in Case 85/86 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, at p. 554, paragraph 130.

96 Judgment in Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm v Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR 1, at p. 15, paragraph 9.

97 Judgment in Joined Cases 253/78 and 1/79 to 3/79 Procureur de la République v Bruno Giry and Guerlain [1980] ECR 2327, at p. 2374 et seq., paragraph 15 et seq.

98 Article 9(3).

99 Judgments in Case 127/73 BRT v Sabam, cited above, at p. 62 et seq., as regards Article 86 and in Case 37/79 Many v Estée Lauder [1980] ECR 2481, at p. 2500, as regards Article 85(1).

100 Judgments in Case 48/72 Bruitene de Haecht v Wilkin-/am¡en (Haecht II) [19731 ECR 77, at p 86, paragraph 10 et seq. and in Case 37/79 Marty v Ettée Lauder, cited above, at p. 2500, paragraph 14.

101 Sec, for instance, the judgment in Case 37/79 Marty v Estéé Lauder, cited above, at p. 2499, paragraph 10.

102 Opinion of Advocate General Reischl in Case 37/79, Manyv Estée Lauder, cited above, at p. 2507.

103 Judgment in Case 37/79 Marty v. Estée Lauder, cited above, at p. 2499.

104 See, for instance, the judgment in Case 22/71 Bêqueling Import Co v. SAGL [1971] ECR 949 at p. 961, paragraphs 19 to 22 and in Case 63/75 Fonderies Roubaix v Fondenes Roux [1976] ECR 111, at p. 118, paragraph 10 et seg. and most recently in Case 161/84 Pronuptia [1986] ECR 353, at p. 387, paragraph 33.

105 Judgment in Case 66/86, paragraph 32.