Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T01:29:51.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Karl Newman and
Christopher Harding
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

In the period covered by this note (early 1994 to the middle of 1995) some signifi cant and interesting judgments have been handed down by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance on both substantive and procedural issues of competition law, in particular that of the Court of Justice in the Magill case, which deals with the relationship between Article 86 and intellectual property rights. In the legislative field there is now a group exemption on the operation of liner transport services. As regards general problems of enforcement, the Commission's 1993 Notice on Co-operation between National Courts and the Commission1 has provoked a good deal of discussion and a number of commentators and also the Commission itself are now advocating sharing responsibility for enforcement with national competition authorities rather than relying on the direct effect of Articles 85(1) and 86 being invoked before national courts.2

Information

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1996, pp. 226 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

References

1. (1993) O.J. C39/6. See the note by Harding (1994) 431.C.L.Q. 721, 723.

2. For a general discussion and reference to recent literature, see Jo Shaw, “Decentralization and Law Enforcement in EC Competition Law” (1995) 15 Legal Studies 128. See in particular the Commission's 23rd Report on Competition Policy, paras.190–191. The Commission proposes to publish a new notice on the matter.

3. Joined cases C-241 and 242/91 Radio Telefis Eireann v. Commission, Independent Television Publications Ltd v. Commission, judgment of 6 04. 1995, C.M.L.R. Antitrust Reports 1995 p.718. For another critical assessment of the cases see the note on Intellectual Property in the July 1995 issue of the I.C.L.Q. (Vol.44, Part 3, p.714).Google Scholar

4. Case 238/87 [1988] E.C.R. 6211.

5. Case 364/92 [1994] E.C.R. 1–43.

6. (1994) O.J. L239/14.

7. Case T-77/92 [1994] E.C.R. 11–549.

8. Case T-2/93 [1994] E.C.R. 11–121.

9. Case T-46/92 [1994] E.C.R. 11–1039.

10. Case T-17/93 [1994] E.C.R. 11–595.

11. Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission [1994] E.C.R. 11–755.

12. (1994) O.J. L243/1.

13. (1994) O.J. L343/1.

14. (1994) O.J. L239/14.

15. Case C-327/91 French Republic v. Commission [1994] E.C.R. 1–3641. For further particulars see the note on External Relations in the January 1995 issue of the I.C.L.Q. (Vol.44, Pan 1, p.232) and the short article in the 07 1995 issue (Vol.44, Part 3, p.659).Google Scholar

16. Reg.870/95, 28 Apr. 1995 (1995) O.J. L89/7.