Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 14 July 1993

1 Original language: French.

2 Whose task under the law is to ensure observance of the tar iffs, the transport conditions and the provisions concerning permits (Paragraph 54 of the GuKG).

3 Paragraph 23(3) of the GÙKG.

4 Judgment of the national court, p. 7.

5 Ibid., p. 13.

6 Paragraph III-4.

7 Case 223/78 Grosoli [1979] ECR 2621, paragraph 3.

8 See the judgment in Joined Cases 209/84 to 213/84 Asjes [1986] ECR 1425, parigraph 40.

9 OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 302.

10 Judgment cited in note 7 above, paragraphs 36 and 42. Regarding air transport, sec also the judgment in Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerb [1989] ECR 803. Sec also the judgment in Casc 167/73 Commission v France [1974] ECR 359, paragraph 32.

11 Judgment in Case 229/83 Leclerc v Au Blé Vert [1985] ECR 1, paragraph 14. Cases consistent therewith: Case 13/77 INNO v ATAB [1977] ECR 2115, paragraph 31; Asjes, cited above, paragraph 71; Casc 311/85 VVR [1987] ECR 3801, paragraph 10; Case 136/86 BNIC v Aubert [1987] ECR 4789, paragraph 23; Case 267/86 Van Eycke [1988] ECR 4769, paragraph 16.

12 That article is not in fact mentioned in the preliminary question.

13 That article docs not impose a general obligation on the Member States not to restrict competition (see in that regard G. Marcnco, Le Traité CEE intcrdit-il aux États membres de restreindre la concurrence?, CDE 1986, p. 285, and D. Waclbrocck, Application des règles de concurrence du traité de Rome à l'autorité publique, Revue dit marché commun, January 1987, No 303, p. 25).

14 Judgments in Case 32/65 haly v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389, at 405) and in Joined Cases 100-103/80 Pioneer [1983] ECR 1825, paragraph 107.

15 Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64 [1966] ECR 299.

16 Ibid., at 340.

17 Sec, for example, G. Wils, La rule of reason en droit dc la concurrence de la CEE, CDE, 1990, p. 19, paragraph 16, or G. Marcnco, op. cit., p. 289.

18 G. Wils, op. cit. paragraph 16. Sec also the introduction to the Fourteenth report on competition policy, 1984, p. 11: The objective of competition policy is thus to ensure that competition is allowed to have these beneficial effects, and, in the process, help mould the Community into a genuine common market. This docs not mean that the market must always be given a free rein in regulating economic activity: in some circumstances untrammelled market forces could stifle or even eliminate competition. Competition policy must strike a balance between reliance on market forces to maintain competition and selective intervention where necessary — cited by G. Wils, op. cit., p. 37.

19 E. Fox, ‘Monopolization and Dominance in the U. S. and the E. C. Efficiency, Opportunity and fairness, Notre Dame Law Review, 1986, p. 982, cited by G. Wils, cited above, paragraph 15.

20 Sec the commentary on Article 222 in V. Constantino and Others, Commentaire du traité, article par article.

21 Answers to the questions put by the Court.

22 Emphasis added.

23 Judgment in VVR, cited above, paragraph 10.

24 The first regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87.

25 Sec the judgment in Case 231/83 Cutlet v Leclerc [1985] ECR 305, paragraph 13.

26 Sec the judgment in Marchandise, cited above, paragraph 22.

27 Judgment in BNIC v Allbert, cited above, paragraph 23.

28 Judgment in VVÄ, cited above, paragraph 23.

29 Ibid.

30 judgment cited above, paragraph 16.

31 I loffman. Anticompetitive State legislation condemned under Articles 5, 85 and 86 of the KHC Treaty: how far should the Court go after Van liyckc?. (1990) 1 KCLR, p. 22.

32 fordham International Imu- journal. Vol 12, p. 163, at 172.

33 Judgment cited above, paragraph 16.

34 Judgment in Case C-332/89 [1991] F.CR I-1027.

35 Judgment in Van Eycke, paragraph 19.

36 Paragraph 23.

37 Cited above, paragraph 17.

38 See paragraph 16.

39 My Opinion in Leclerc v Au Blé Vert, [1985] ECR 2, paragraph 8.

40 Case C 126/91 [1993] ECR I-2361. The provision it issue was Paragraph 6 of the German Law on unfair competition.

41 Case C-18/88 RTT v GB INNO BM [1991] ECR I-5941. paragraph 20.

42 Cited above, note 4C.

43 Sec the Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in Van Eycke, in particular paragraph 3 ([1988] ECR 4784).

44 See to that effect U. Ehricke, Sute intervention and EEC competition law: opportunities and limits of the European Court of Justice's approach — a critical analysis of four key cases World Competition, 1990, No 1, pp. 79-102.

45 Paragraph 118 of the judgment in Case T-30/89 Hilti [1991] II-1439. That judgment is the subject of an appeal to the Court of Justice.

46 Paragraph 30 of the judgment in Case 5/79 Buys [19791 ECR 3203.

47 Paragraph 19, emphasis added.

48 Paragraph 21(b)(3) of the GÜKG — sec below.

49 German Federation of Road Hauliers.

50 Ibid., annex 6.

51 Which referred a question to the Court of Justice (Case C-48/92 Wimmcr).

52 P. 9 of the Trench translation.

53 They receive no mandate and no instructions (fourth sentence of Paragraph 21(2) of the GüKG).

54 P. 9 of the French translation.

55 On this point, sec the Commission's observations, p. 13.Sec also, to the same effect, Dolfen, Der Verkehr im europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht, 1991, p. 163, who also points out that the members of the tariff boards who cease to belong to the associations which nominated them cease to be members of the board.

56 Judgment cited above.

57 [1985] ECR at 396.

58 Judgment in Case 71/74 Fruho v Commission [1975] ECR 563, paragraph 30.

59 See its observations, p. 10.

60 Paragraph 20a(6) of the GÜKG.

61 Sec the observations of L. Gyselcn in State action and the effectiveness of the EEC Treaty's competition provisions, 1989 CMLR, paragraph 3.2.1.

62 L. Gyselcn, op. cit., paragraph 3.2.3.

63 Sec the Bundesanstalt's observations, p. 16.

64 Sec the order of the Federal Minister of Transport of 21 November 1969, annex 2 to the Commission's observations.

65 Fmphasts added

66 Paragraph 22(1) of ihc GuKG

67 Sec applications Nos 1361/64 and 1434/85 referred to in Annex 2 to the German Government's observations.

68 Paragraph 20a(3) of the GÜKG.

69 Paragraph 20a(4) of the GÜKG. The Ministers of Transpon and the Economy may also, on their own initiative, cancel orders fixing tariffs if the public interest so requires {Ibid.).

70 Paragraph 21b(3) of the GilKG.

71 Sec Annex 3 to the Commission's observations. It should be added that the Minister of Transport fixes all the other important conditions of the transport contract (Paragraph 20a(5) of the GÜKG).