
Article 234 and Competition Law
Description
Alles über E-Books | Antworten auf Fragen rund um E-Books, Kopierschutz und Dateiformate finden Sie in unserem Info- & Hilfebereich.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions

Content
- Intro
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Table of Contents
- Detailed Table of Contents
- Alphabetical Table of Cases
- Chronological Table of Cases
- Contributor Biographies
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword
- Miguel Poiares Maduro, Advocate General, ECJ
- Part I Introduction and Analysis
- Barry Rodger
- Chapter 1 Introduction - Background and Research Methodology
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Article 234 and its Crucial Role
- 3. Background Literature and Research
- 4. Undertaking the Research
- 4.1 Research Aims and Proposed Outcomes
- 4.2 Methodology
- 4.2.1 Compiling the Database of Cases
- 4.2.2 Substantive Scope of the Research: Competition Law Related Rulings
- 4.2.3 Role of the Rapporteurs
- 4.2.4 Difficulties/Limitations
- 5. Book Layout
- Chapter 2 Number and Source of ECJ Rulings
- 1. ntroduction
- 2. Number of Rulings and Periodic Rulings
- 2.1 France
- 2.2 Italy
- 2.3 Germany
- 2.4 Belgium
- 2.5 The Netherlands
- 2.6 Denmark
- 2.7 Portugal
- 2.8 United Kingdom
- 2.9 Austria
- 2.10 Finland
- 2.11 Greece
- 2.12 Ireland
- 2.13 Luxembourg
- 2.14 Spain
- 3. Key Period Rulings
- 4. Source of References
- 4.1 France
- 4.2 Italy
- 4.3 Germany
- 4.4 Belgium
- 4.5 The Netherlands
- 4.6 Countries with 3-5 Rulings
- 4.6.1 Denmark
- 4.6.2 Portugal
- 4.6.3 UK
- Chapter 3 ECJ Rulings and the Post-Ruling Process
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Competition Law Issues
- 2.1 France
- 2.2 Italy
- 2.3 Germany
- 2.4 Belgium
- 2.5 The Netherlands
- 2.6 Countries with 3-5 Rulings
- 2.6.1 Denmark
- 2.6.2 Portugal
- 2.6.3 UK
- 2.7 Countries with 1-2 Rulings
- 2.7.1 Austria
- 2.7.2 Finland
- 2.7.3 Greece
- 2.7.4 Ireland
- 2.7.5 Luxembourg
- 2.7.6 Spain
- 3. Length of ECJ Competition Rulings
- 4. ECJ Competition Ruling Delays
- 5. Post-ruling Process
- 5.1 France
- 5.2 Italy
- 5.3 Germany
- 5.4 Belgium
- 5.5 The Netherlands
- 5.6 Countries with 3-5 Rulings
- 5.6.1 Denmark
- 5.6.2 Portugal
- 5.6.3 UK
- 5.7 Countries with 1-2 Rulings
- 5.7.1 Austria
- 5.7.2 Finland
- 5.7.3 Greece
- 5.7.4 Ireland
- 5.7.5 Luxembourg
- 5.7.6 Spain
- 6. Evidence of Impact of ECJ Competition Law Rulings
- 6.1 Landmark ECJ Competition Law Rulings
- 6.1.1 France
- 6.1.2 Italy
- 6.1.3 Germany
- 6.1.4 Belgium
- 6.1.5 Netherlands
- 6.1.6 Countries with 3-5 Rulings
- 6.1.7 Countries with 1-2 Rulings
- 6.2 ECJ Rulings and the Creation of a Legal Competition Culture in the Community
- 7. Conclusions
- Part II Member State Reports
- National Rapporteurs
- Chapter 4 France
- Guillaume Taillandier
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1 Analysis of French Courts'References
- 1.2 Subject Matter of the Decisions Referred
- 1.3 Ruling and Post-Ruling Process
- 2. French Cases
- 2.1 Case 1: Société Technique Minière (LTM) v. Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (MBU) Case 56/65
- 2.1.1 Background
- 2.1.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2 Case 2: Société Anonyme Cadillon v. Firma Höss, Maschinenbau KG Case 1/71
- 2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.3 Case 3: Béguelin Import Co. v. S.A.G.L. Import Export Case 22/71
- 2.3.1 Background
- 2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.4 Case 4: Fonderies Roubaix Wattrelos v. Fonderies Roux and Fonderies JOT Case 63/75
- 2.4.1 Background
- 2.4.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.5 Case 5: Procureur général v. Hans Buys, Han P esch et Yves Dullieux et Denkavit France SARL Case 5/79
- 2.5.1 Background
- 2.5.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.6 Case 6: Greenwich Film v. SACEM Case 22/79
- 2.6.1 Background
- 2.6.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.6.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.6.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.7 Case 7: Anne Marty SA v. Estee Lauder SA Case 37/79
- 2.7.1 Background
- 2.7.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.7.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.7.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.8 Case 8: Procureur de la République and others v. Bruno Giry and Guerlain SA and others Joined Cases 253/78 and 1-3/79
- 2.8.1 Background
- 2.8.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.8.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.8.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.9 Case 9: Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc and others v. SARL 'Au blé vert' and others Case 229/83
- 2.9.1 Background
- 2.9.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.9.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.9.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.10 Case 10: Henri Cullet and Chambre syndicale des réparateurs automobiles et détaillants de produits pétroliers v. Centre Leclerc à Toulouse and Centre Leclerc à Saint-Orens-de-Gameville Case 231/83
- 2.10.1 Background
- 2.10.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.10.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.10.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.11 Case 11: Bureau national interprofessionnel du cognac v. Guy Clair Case 123/83
- 2.11.1 Background
- 2.11.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.11.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.11.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.12 Case 12: SA Saint-Herblain distribution, Centre distributeur Leclerc and others v. Syndicat des libraires de Loire - Océan Case 299/83
- 2.12.1 Background
- 2.12.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.12.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.12.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.13 Procureur de la République v. Claude Chabaud et Jean-Louis Rémy Case 79-80/84
- 2.13.1 Background
- 2.13.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.13.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.13.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.14 Case 14: Procureur de la République and Direction interdépartementale de la concurrence et de la consommation v. Jacques Binet and others Case 149/84
- 2.14.1 Background
- 2.14.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.14.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.14.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.15 Case 15: Procureur de la République v. Marie-Hélene Ferey, née Héricotte Case 215/84
- 2.15.1 Background
- 2.15.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.15.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.15.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.16 Case 16: Procureur de la République v. Jean-Pierre Gontier Case 201/84
- 2.16.1 Background
- 2.16.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.16.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.16.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.17 Case 17: Procureur de la République v. Christian Gratiot Case 11/84
- 2.17.1 Background
- 2.17.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.17.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.17.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.18 Case 18 Procureur de la République v. Michel Leclerc Case 34/84
- 2.18.1 Background
- 2.18.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.18.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.18.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.19 Case 19: SA Etablissements Piszko v. SA Dammarie Distribution 'Centre Leclerc' et SA Carrefour Supermarché Joined Cases 114 and 115/84
- 2.19.1 Background
- 2.19.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.19.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.19.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.20 Case 20: Procureur de la République et directeur départemental de la concurrence et de la consommation v. J. Chiron and others Joined Cases 271-274/84 and 6-7/85, 6/7/85
- 2.20.1 Background
- 2.20.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.20.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.20.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.21 Case 21: Criminal Proceedings v. Lucas Asjes and others, Andrew Gray and others, Jacques Maillot and others, Léo Ludwig and others Joined Cases 209-213/84
- 2.21.1 Background
- 2.21.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.21.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.21.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.22 Case 22: VAG France SA v. Etablissements Magne SA Case 10/86
- 2.22.1 Background
- 2.22.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.22.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.22.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.23 Case 23: G. Basset v. Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (SACEM) Case 402/85
- 2.23.1 Background
- 2.23.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.23.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.23.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.24 Case 24: Ministère public v. Régis Lefevre Case 188/86
- 2.24.1 Background
- 2.24.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.24.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.24.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.25 Case 25: Bureau national interprofessionnel du cognac v. Yves Aubert Case 136/86
- 2.25.1 Background
- 2.25.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.25.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.25.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.26 Case 26: Corinne Bodson v. SA pompes funèbres des regions libérées Case 30/87
- 2.26.1 Background
- 2.26.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.26.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.26.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.27 Case 27: Syndicat des librairies de Normandie v. L'Aigle distribution Case 254/87
- 2.27.1 Background
- 2.27.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.27.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.27.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.28 Case 28: Société alsacienne et lorraine de télécommunications et d'électronique (Alsatel) v. SA Novasam Case 247/86
- 2.28.1 Background
- 2.28.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.28.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.28.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.29 Case 29: Lucazeau e.a. v. SACEM e.a. Joined Cases C-110/88, 241/88 and 242/88
- 2.29.1 Background
- 2.29.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.29.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.29.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.30 Case 30: Ministere public v. Jean-Louis Tournier Case C-395/87
- 2.30.1 Background
- 2.30.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.30.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.30.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.31 Case 31: Christian Poucet Assurances Générales de France ('AGF') v. Caisse Mutuelle Régionale du Languedoc-Roussillon ('Camulrac') and Daniel Pistre v. Caisse Autonome Nationale de Compensation de l' Assurance Vieillesse des Artisans ('Cancava') Joined Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91
- 2.31.1 Background
- 2.31.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.31.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.31.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.32 Case 32: Société civile agricole du Centre d'insémination de la Crespelle v. Coopérative d'élevage et d'insémination artificielle du departement de la Mayenne Case C-323/93
- 2.32.1 Background
- 2.32.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.32.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.32.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.33 Case 33: Societe d'importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicite SA and M6 Publicité SA Case C-412/93
- 2.33.1 Background
- 2.33.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.33.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.33.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.34 Case 34: FFSA v. Ministere de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche Case C-244/94
- 2.34.1 Background
- 2.34.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.34.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.34.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.35 Case 35: Grand garage Albigeois et autres v. Garage Massol SARL Case C-226/94
- 2.35.1 Background
- 2.35.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.35.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.35.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.36 Case 36: Nissan France vs Garage Sport Auto, Star' Terre SARL and Aqueducs Automobiles SARL Case C-309/94
- 2.36.1 Background
- 2.36.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.36.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.36.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.37 Case 37: Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) and others v. La Poste and others Case C-39/94
- 2.37.1 Background
- 2.37.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.37.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.37.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.38 Case 38: Fontaine v. Aquediucs Automobile SARL Case C-128/95
- 2.38.1 Background
- 2.38.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.38.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.38.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.39 Case 39: Javico International & Javico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA (YSLP) Case C-306/96
- 2.39.1 Background
- 2.39.2 Questions for ECJ
- 2.39.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.39.4 Post-ruling
- 2.40 Case 40: Cabour SA et Nord Distribution Automobile SA, supported by Automobiles Peugeot SA et Automobiles Citroën SA v. Arnor 'Soco' SARL Case C-230/96
- 2.40.1 Background
- 2.40.2 Questions for ECJ
- 2.40.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.40.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.41 Case 41: Echirolles Distribution SA v. Association du Dauphiné e.a. Case C-9/99
- 2.41.1 Background
- 2.41.2 Questions for ECJ
- 2.41.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.41.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.42 Case 42: Ferring SA v. Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) Case C-53/00
- 2.42.1 Background
- 2.42.2 Questions for ECJ
- 2.42.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.42.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.43 Case 43: Roquette Frères SA v. Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes Case C-94/00
- 2.43.1 Background
- 2.43.2 Questions for ECJ
- 2.43.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.43.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.44 Case 44: Ministre de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie vs GEMO SA Case C-126/01
- 2.44.1 Background
- 2.44.2 Questions for ECJ
- 2.44.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.44.4 Post-Ruling
- Chapter 5 Italy
- Igor Taccani
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Italian Cases
- 2.1 Case 1: Costa v. ENEL Case 6/64
- 2.1.1 Background
- 2.1.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2 Case 2: Sirena v. EDA a.o. Case 40/70
- 2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.3 Case 3: Carmine Capolongo v. Aziende Agricole Maya Case 77/72
- 2.3.1 Background
- 2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.4 Case 4: Giuseppe Sacchi Case 155/73
- 2.4.1 Background
- 2.4.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.5 Case 5: IGAV v. ENCC Case 94/74
- 2.5.1 Background
- 2.5.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.6 Case 6: Iannelli & Volpi v. Meroni Case 74/76
- 2.6.1 Background
- 2.6.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.6.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.6.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.7 Case 7: Van Aymede v. UCI Case 90/76
- 2.7.1 Background
- 2.7.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.7.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.7.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.8 Case 8: Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit Case 61/79
- 2.8.1 Background
- 2.8.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.8.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.8.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.9 Case 9: Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Ariete Spa Case 811/79
- 2.9.1 Background
- 2.9.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.9.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.9.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.10 Case 10: Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. MIRECO Case 826/79
- 2.10.1 Background
- 2.10.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.10.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.10.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.11 Case 11: Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Essevi Spa Joined Cases 142 and 143/80
- 2.11.1 Background
- 2.11.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.11.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.11.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.12 Case 12: Salonia v. Poidomani and Giglio Case 126/80
- 2.12.1 Background
- 2.12.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.12.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.12.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.13 Case 13: CICRA and Maxicar v. Regie nazionale des usines Renault Case 53/87
- 2.13.1 Background
- 2.13.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.13.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.13.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.14 Case 14: Du Pont v. USL n.2 di Carrara Case C-21/88
- 2.14.1 Background
- 2.14.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.14.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.14.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.15 Case 15: Merci Convenzional Porto di Genova Spa v. Siderurgica Gabrielli Case C-179/90
- 2.15.1 Background
- 2.15.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.15.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.15.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.15.4.1 Comment
- 2.16 Case 16: Fonderia A. Spa v. Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Electrico Case C-100/92
- 2.16.1 Background
- 2.16.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.16.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.16.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.17 Case 17: Corsica Ferries Italia Srl v. Corpo Piloti del Porto di Genova Case C-18/93
- 2.17.1 Background
- 2.17.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.17.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.17.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.18 Case 18: Centro Servizi Spediporto Case C-96/94
- 2.18.1 Background
- 2.18.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.18.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.18.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.19 Case 19: DIP SpA a.o. Comune di Bassano Grappa Joined Cases C140-142/94
- 2.19.1 Background
- 2.19.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.19.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.19.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.20 Case 20: Criminal Proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero Case C-387/93
- 2.20.1 Background
- 2.20.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.20.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.20.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.21 Case 21: Diego Cali & Figli Srl v. Servizi Ecologici Porto di Genova (SPEG) Case C-343/95
- 2.21.1 Background
- 2.21.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.21.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.21.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.22 Case 22: Sodemare Sa a.o. v. Regione Lombardia Case C-70/95
- 2.22.1 Background
- 2.22.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.22.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.22.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.23 Case 23: Job Centre II Case C-55/96
- 2.23.1 Background
- 2.23.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.23.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.23.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.24 Case 24: Silvano Raso a.o. Case C-163/96
- 2.24.1 Background
- 2.24.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.24.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.24.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.25 Case 25: Viscido and others /Ente Poste Italiane Joined Cases C52-54/97
- 2.25.1 Background
- 2.25.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.25.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.25.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.26 Case 26: Corsica Ferries France/Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova a. o. Case C-266/96
- 2.26.1 Background
- 2.26.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.26.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.26.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.27 Case 27: Autotrasporti Librandi Case C-38/97
- 2.27.1 Background
- 2.27.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.27.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.27.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.28 Case 28: Ecotrade Case C-200/97
- 2.28.1 Background
- 2.28.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.28.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.28.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.29 Case 29: Bagnasco Joined Cases C-215-216/96
- 2.29.1 Background
- 2.29.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.29.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.29.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.30 Case 30: Rinaldo Piaggio Case C-295/97
- 2.30.1 Background
- 2.30.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.30.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.30.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.31 Case 31: Carra and Others Case C-258/98
- 2.31.1 Background
- 2.31.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.31.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.31.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.32 Case 32: TNT Traco Spa, Poste Italiane Spa Case C-340/99
- 2.32.1 Background
- 2.32.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.32.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.32.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.33 Case 33: Conte Case C-221/99
- 2.33.1 Background
- 2.33.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.33.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.33.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.34 Case 34: Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C Case C-218-00
- 2.34.1 Background
- 2.34.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.34.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.34.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.35 Case 35: Arduino Case C-35/99
- 2.35.1 Background
- 2.35.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.35.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.35.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.36 Case 36: Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) Case C-198/01
- 2.36.1 Background
- 2.36.1.1 The Legal Framework
- 2.36.1.2 The AGCM Decision
- 2.36.1.3 The Main Proceedings
- 2.36.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.36.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.36.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.37 Case 37: Altair Chimica Case C-207/01
- 2.37.1 Background
- 2.37.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.37.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.37.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.38 Case 38: Enirisorse Cases C-34-38/01
- 2.38.1 Background
- 2.38.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.38.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.38.4 Post-Ruling
- Chapter 6 Germany
- Lisa Lernborg
- 1. Introduction
- 2. German Cases
- 2.1 Case 1: Walt Wilhelm, Hans Goelz, Hans Ulrich Fintelmann, Badische Anilin-und Soda-Fabrik AG, Farbenfabrik Bayer AG, Farbwerke Hoechst AG, Cassella Farbwerke Mainkur AG v. Bundeskartellamt Case 14/68
- 2.1.1 Background
- 2.1.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2 Case 2: Franz Voelk v. Etablissements J. Vervaecke (Societé de Personnes à Responsabilité Limité) Case 5/69
- 2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.3 Case 3: Brauerei A. Bilger Soehne GmbH v. Heinrich Jehle Case 43/69
- 2.3.1 Background
- 2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.4 Case 4: Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v. Metro-SB-Grossmaerkte GmbH and Company KG, represented by the Company Metro-SB-Grossmaerkte GmbH Case 78/70
- 2.4.1 Background
- 2.4.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.5 Case 5: Parfums Marcel Rochas Vertriebs-GmbH v. Helmut Bitsch Case 1/70
- 2.5.1 Background
- 2.5.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.6 Case 6: EMI Records Limited v. CBS Schallplatten GmbH Case 96/75
- 2.6.1 Background
- 2.6.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.6.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.6.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.7 Case 7: Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG and Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen v. Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse mbH Case 102/77
- 2.7.1 Background
- 2.7.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.7.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.7.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.8 Case 8: Gerhard Zuechner, Rosenheim v. Bayersiche Vereinsbank AG Case 172/80
- 2.8.1 Background
- 2.8.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.8.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.8.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.9 Case 9: Societe de Vente de Ciments et Betons de L'Est SA v. Kerpen & Kerpen GmbH & Co. KG Case 319/82
- 2.9.1 Background
- 2.9.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.9.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.9.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.10 Case 10: Hydrotherm Geratebau GmbH v. Compact del Dott. Ing. Mario Andreoli & C. SAS Case 170/83
- 2.10.1 Background
- 2.10.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.10.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.10.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.11 Case 11: Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v. Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgalis Case 161/84
- 2.11.1 Background
- 2.11.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.11.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.11.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.12 Case 12: Bayer AG and Machinenfabrik Hennecke GmbH v. Heinz Suellhoefer Case 65/86
- 2.12.1 Background
- 2.12.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.12.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.12.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.13 Case 13: Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebuero GmbH v. Zentrale zur Bekaempfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (Registered Association for the Campaign Against Unfair Competition) Case 66/86
- 2.13.1 Background
- 2.13.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.13.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.13.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.14 Case 14: Stergios Delimitis v. Henninger Braeu AG Case 234/89
- 2.14.1 Background
- 2.14.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.14.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.14.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.15 Case 15: Klaus Hoefner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH Case C-41/90
- 2.15.1 Background
- 2.15.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.15.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.15.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.16 Case 16: Federal Republic of Germany v. Wolf W. Meng Case C-2/91
- 2.16.1 Background
- 2.16.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.16.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.16.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.17 Case 17: Bundesanstalt fuer den Gueterfernverkehr v. Gebrueder Reiff GmbH & Co. KG Case C-185/91
- 2.17.1 Background
- 2.17.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.17.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.17.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.18 Case 18: Metro SB-Grossmaerkte GmbH & Co. KG v. Cartier SA Case C-376/92
- 2.18.1 Background
- 2.18.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.18.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.18.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.19 Case 19: Federal Republic of Germany v. Delta Schiffahrts-und Speditionsgesellschaft mbH
- 2.19.1 Background
- 2.19.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.19.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.19.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.20 Case 20: Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v. ALD Auto-Leasing D GmbH Case C-70/93
- 2.20.1 Background
- 2.20.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.20.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.20.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.21 Case 21: Bundeskartellamt v. Volkswagen AG, VAG Leasing GmbH, supported by VAG-Haendlerbeirat eV, intervener Case C-266/93
- 2.21.1 Background
- 2.21.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.21.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.21.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.22 Case 22: VAG-Händlerbeirat eV v. SYD-Consult Case C-41/96
- 2.22.1 Background
- 2.22.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.22.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.22.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.23 Case 23: Deutsche Post AG v. Gesellschaft für Zahlungssysteme mbH (GZS), (C-147/97) and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH (C-148/97) Cases C-147 & 148/97
- 2.23.1 Background
- 2.23.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.23.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.23.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.24 Case 24: G PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG in the presence of Windpark Reußenköge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein Case C-379/98
- 2.24.1 Background
- 2.24.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.24.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.24.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.25 Case 25: Ambulanz Gloeckner v. Landkreis Suedwestpfalz
- Joined parties: Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz eV, Deutsches Rotes Kreutz Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz eV and Vertreter des oeffentlichen Interesses Case C-475/99
- 2.25.1 Background
- 2.25.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.25.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.25.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.26 Case 26: 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskassen (BKK), 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der Landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, 6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft, 8. See-Krankenkasse v. Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (C-264/01)
- Mundipharma GmbH (C-306/01)
- Godecke GmbH (C-354/01)
- Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (C-355/01) Case
- 2.26.1 Background
- 2.26.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.26.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.26.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.27 Case 27: IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG Case C-418/01
- 2.27.1 Background
- 2.27.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.27.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.27.4 Post-Ruling
- Chapter 7 Belgium
- Marianne Dony and Carole Moal-Nuyts
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1 Multiplicity of Belgian References to the ECJ
- 1.1.2 Frequency of References
- 1.1.3 Experience of Similar Reference Procedures
- 1.1.4 Other Explanatory Factors
- 1.2 Diversity of Referring Courts
- 1.2.1 Various Identities of the Referring Courts
- 1.2.1.1 Level of Court Referring
- 1.3 Form, Relevance and Follow up to Preliminary Questions
- 1.3.1 Form
- 1.3.2 Relevance
- 1.3.2.1 Follow Up
- 2. Belgian Cases
- 2.1 Case 1: SA Brasserie de Haecht v. Consorts Wilkin-Janssens Case 23/67
- 2.1.1 Background
- 2.1.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2 Case 2: SA Portelange v. SA Smith Corona Marchant International et al. Case 10/69
- 2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.3 Case 3: SA Brasserie de Haecht v. Consorts Wilkin-Janssens Case 48/72
- 2.3.1 Background
- 2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.4 Case 4: Belgische Radio en Televisie v. SV SABAM and NV Fonior (BRT-I and BRT-II) Case 127/73
- 2.4.1 Background
- 2.4.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.5 Case 5: Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville Case 8/74
- 2.5.1 Background
- 2.5.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.6 Case 6: Alexis de Norre and his wife Martine, née de Clerq v. NV Brouwerij Concordia Case 47/76
- 2.6.1 Background
- 2.6.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.6.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.6.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.7 Case 7: SA G.B.-INNO-B.M. v. Association des détaillants en tabac (ATAB) Case 13/77
- 2.7.1 Background
- 2.7.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.7.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.7.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.8 Case 8: Etablissements A. De Bloos SPRL v. Société en Commandite par Actions Bouyer Case 59/77
- 2.8.1 Background
- 2.8.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.8.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.8.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.9 Case 9: NV L'Oreal and SA L'Omal v. PVBA 'De Nieuwe AMCK' Case 31/80
- 2.9.1 Background
- 2.9.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.9.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.9.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.10 Case 10: Coditel SA, Compagnie generale pour la diffusion de la télévision, et al. v. Cine-Vog Fims SA et al. Case 262/81
- 2.10.1 Background
- 2.10.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.10.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.10.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.11 Case 11: SA Binon & Cie v. SA Agence et messageries de la presse Case 243/83
- 2.11.1 Background
- 2.11.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.11.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.11.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.12 Case 12: Centre belge d'etudes de marché - Télémarketing (CBEM) v. SA Compagnie luxembourgeoise de télédiffusion (CLT) and Information publicite Benelux (IPB) Case 311/84
- 2.12.1 Background
- 2.12.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.12.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.12.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.13 Case 13: ETA Fabriques d'Ebauches v. SA DK Investment et al. Case 31/85
- 2.13.1 Background
- 2.13.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.13.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.13.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.14 Case 14: ASBL Vereiniging van Vlaamse Reisbureaus v. ASBL Sociale Dienst van de Plaatselijke en Gewestelijke Overheidsdiensten Case 311/85
- 2.14.1 Background
- 2.14.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.14.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.14.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.15 Case 15: SPRL Louis Erauw-Jacquery v. La Hesbignonne SC Case 27/87
- 2.15.1 Background
- 2.15.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.15.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.15.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.16 Case 16: Pascal Van Eycke v. ASPA NV Case 267/86
- 2.16.1 Background
- 2.16.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.16.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.16.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.17 Case 17: Criminal proceedings against Andre Marchandise, Jean-Marie Chapuis and SA Trafitex Case 267/86
- 2.17.1 Background
- 2.17.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.17.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.17.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.18 Case 18: Régie des télégraphes et des téléphones v. GB-Inno-BM SA Case 18/88
- 2.18.1 Background
- 2.18.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.18.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.18.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.19 Case 19: Criminal proceedings against Paul Corbeau Case C-320/91
- 2.19.1 Background
- 2.19.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.19.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.19.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.20 Case 20: Procureur du Roi v. Jean-Marie Lagauche et al. Joined Cases C-46/90 and C-93/91
- 2.20.1 Background
- 2.20.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.20.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.20.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.21 Case 21: SAT Fluggesellschaft mbH v. Eurocontrol Case C-364/92
- 2.21.1 Background
- 2.21.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.21.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.21.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.22 Case 22: Namur-Les Assurances du Credit SA v. Office National du Ducroire and the Belgian State Case C-44/93
- 2.22.1 Background
- 2.22.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.22.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.22.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.23 Case 23: 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 Case C-415/93
- 2.23.1 Background
- 2.23.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.23.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.23.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.24 Case 24: Demenagements - Manutention Transports SA (DMT) Case C-256/97
- 2.24.1 Background
- 2.24.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.24.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.24.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.25 Case 25: Criminal proceedings against Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, Smeg NV and Adia Interim NV Case C-22/98
- 2.25.1 Background
- 2.25.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.25.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.25.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.26 Case 26: Belgische Staat and Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren (C-261/01) and between Belgische Staat and Openbaar Slachthuis NV (C-262/01) Joined Cases C-261-262/01
- 2.26.1 Background
- 2.26.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.26.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.26.4 Post-Ruling
- Chapter 8 The Netherlands
- Narin Tezcan, Jeroen Boot and Piet Jan Slot
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The Netherlands Cases
- 2.1 Case 1: Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geus en Uitdenbogerd v. Robert Bosch GmbH and Maatschappij tot voortzetting van de Zaken der Firma Willem van Rijn Case 13/61
- 2.1.1 Background
- 2.1.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2 Case 2: Parke, Davis and Co. v. Probel, Reese, Bientema-Interpharm and Centrafarm Case 24/67
- 2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.3 Case 3: Centrafarm BV et Adriaan de Peijper v. Sterling Drug Inc. Case 15/74
- 2.3.1 Background
- 2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.4 Case 4: Centrafarm BV et Adriaan de Peijper v. Winthrop BV Case 16/74
- 2.4.1 Background
- 2.4.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.5 Case 5: Van Vliet Kwasten & en Ladderfabriek NV v. Fratelli Dalle Crode Case 25/75
- 2.5.1 Background
- 2.5.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.6 Case 6: Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels et al. v. Eldi Records BV Case 106/79
- 2.6.1 Background
- 2.6.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.6.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.6.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.7 Case 7: SA Lancôme and Cosparfrance Nederland BV v. Etos BV and Albert Heyn Supermart BV Case 99/79
- 2.7.1 Background
- 2.7.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.7.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.7.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.8 Case 8: Keurkoop BV v. Nancy Kean Gifts BV Case 144/81
- 2.8.1 Background
- 2.8.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.8.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.8.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.9 Case 9: Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV Joined cases 177 and 178/82
- 2.9.1 Background
- 2.9.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.9.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.9.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.10 Case 10: Otto BV v. Postbank NV Case C-60/92
- 2.10.1 Background
- 2.10.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.10.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.10.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.11 Criminal proceedings against Ohra Schadeverzekeringen NV C-245/91
- 2.11.1 Background
- 2.11.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.11.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.11.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.12 Case 12: Municipality of Almelo et al. v. NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij Case C-393/92
- 2.12.1 Background
- 2.12.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.12.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.12.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.13 Case 13: Criminal proceedings against Tankstation't Heukske vof and J. B. E. Boermans C-401/92 and C-402/92
- 2.13.1 Background
- 2.13.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.13.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.13.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.14 Case 14: Criminal proceedings against Johannes Gerrit Cornelis van Schaik Case C-55/93
- 2.14.1 Background
- 2.14.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.14.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.14.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.15 Case 15: Dijkstra et al. v. Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie et al. Joined Cases C-319/93, C-40/94 and C-224/94
- 2.15.1 Background
- 2.15.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.15.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.15.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.16 Case 16: H. G. Oude Luttikhuis et al. v. Verenigde Cooperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA Case C-399/93
- 2.16.1 Background
- 2.16.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.16.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.16.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.17 Case 17: Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels v. Free Record Shop BV and Free Record Shop Holding NV Case C-39/96
- 2.17.1 Background
- 2.17.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.17.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.17.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.18 Case 18: Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV et al. v. Minister van Volkhuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer Case C-203/96
- 2.18.1 Background
- 2.18.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.18.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.18.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.19 Case 19: Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV Case C-126/97
- 2.19.1 Background
- 2.19.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.19.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.19.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.20 Case 20: Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie Case C-67/96
- 2.20.1 Background
- 2.20.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.20.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.20.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.21 Case 21: Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen Case C-115/97 to C-117/97
- 2.21.1 Background
- 2.21.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.21.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.21.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.22 Case 22: Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken BV v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer-en Havenbedrijven Case C-219/97
- 2.22.1 Background
- 2.22.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.22.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.22.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.23 Case 23: Pavel Pavlov et al. v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98
- 2.23.1 Background
- 2.23.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.23.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.23.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.24 Case 24: Hendrik van der Woude v. Stichting Beatrixoord Case 222/98
- 2.24.1 Background
- 2.24.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.24.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.24.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.25 Case 25: J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten Case C-309/99
- 2.25.1 Background
- 2.25.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.25.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.25.4 Post-Ruling
- Chapter 9 Countries with 3-5 Rulings: Denmark, Portugal and the United Kingdom
- Ulla Neergaard, Leonor Rossi and Sofia Geraldes, and Barry Rodger
- 1. Denmark
- 1.1 Introduction
- 1.2 Danish Cases
- 1.2.1 Case 1: EMI Records Limited v. CBS Grammofon A/S Case 86/75
- 1.2.1.1 Background
- 1.2.1.2 Question for the ECJ
- 1.2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 1.2.2 Case 2: Kai Ottung v. Klee & Wweilbach A/S and Thomas Schmidt A/S Case 320/87
- 1.2.2.1 Background
- 1.2.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 1.2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 1.2.3 Case 3: Goettrup-Klim Grovvareforening et al. v. Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab Amba (DLG) Case C-250/92
- 1.2.3.1 Background
- 1.2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 1.2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 1.2.4 Case 4: GT-Link A/S v. De Danske Statsbaner (DSB) Case C- 242/95
- 1.2.4.1 Background
- 1.2.4.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 1.2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 1.2.5 Case 5: Entrepren0rforeningens Affalds/Milj0sektion (FFAD), Acting for Sydhavnens Sten & Grus Aps v. K0benhavns Kommune Case C-209/98
- 1.2.5.1 Background
- 1.2.5.2 Question for the ECJ
- 1.2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- 2. Portugal
- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.1.2 Relevant Factors
- 2.1.2.1 Political Factors
- 2.1.2.2 Institutional Factors
- 2.1.2.3 Outlook and Further Considerations
- 2.2 Portuguese Cases
- 2.2.1 Case 1: Batista Morais v. Portuguese Republic Case C-60/91
- 2.2.1.1 Background
- 2.2.1.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2.2 Case 2: Petrogal SA v. Correia Simões & Correia, Sousa & Crisóstomo, Lda. Case C-39/92
- 2.2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 2.2.3 Case 3: Flightline Case C-181/00
- 2.2.3.1 Background
- 2.2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 2.2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.3.4 Post Ruling
- 3. United Kingdom
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 UK Cases
- 3.2.1 Case 1: EMI Records Ltd v. CBS United Kingdom Ltd Case 51/75
- 3.2.1.1 Background
- 3.2.1.2 Question for the ECJ
- 3.2.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.2.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 3.2.2 Case 2: AB Volvo v. Erik Veng (UK) Limited Case 238/87
- 3.2.2.1 Background
- 3.2.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 3.2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 3.2.3 Case 3: Courage Ltd v. Crehan (also known as Crehan v. Courage Ltd) Case C-453/99
- 3.2.3.1 Background
- 3.2.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 3.2.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.2.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 3.2.4 Case 4: R v. The Competition Commission ex parte Milk Marque Ltd Case C-137/00
- 3.2.4.1 Background
- 3.2.4.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 3.2.4.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.2.4.4 Post-Ruling
- 3.2.5 Case 5: GIL Insurance Ltd et al. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-308/01
- 3.2.5.1 Background
- 3.2.5.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 3.2.5.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.2.5.4 Post-Ruling
- Chapter 10 Countries with 1-2 Rulings: Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain
- Robert Schmidbauer, Antti Aine, Assimakis Komninos, Hara Nikolopoulou, Dermot Cahill, Elaine Fahey, Marianne Dony, Carole Moal-Nuyts, Teresa Rodriguez de las Heras Ballell and Manuel Alba Fernandez
- 1. Austria
- 1.1 Introduction
- 1.1.2 Relevant Factors
- 1.1.2.1 Political Factors
- 1.1.2.2 Institutional Factors
- 1.1.3 Outlook and Further Considerations
- 1.2 Case 1: Bronner v. Mediaprint Case C-7/97
- 1.2.1 Background
- 1.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 1.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 1.3 Case 2: Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Case C-143/99
- 1.3.1 Background
- 1.3.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 1.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 1.3.4 Post-Ruling
- 2. Finland
- 2.1 General
- 2.2 Neste Markkinointi v. Yotuuli ym. Case C-214/99
- 2.2.1 Background
- 2.2.2 Question for the ECJ
- 2.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 2.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 3. Greece
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 Disappointment
- 3.2.1 Political Factors
- 3.2.2 Institutional/Sociological Factors
- 3.2.3 Factors Relevant to Competition Law Enforcement in Greece
- 3.3 The Meagre Record: Asteris and ERT
- 3.3.1 Case 1: Asteris AE et al. v. Hellenic Republic and EEC Joined cases C-106 to 120/87
- 3.3.1.1 Background
- 3.3.1.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 3.3.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.3.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 3.3.2 Case 2: Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorasi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v. Dimotiki Etaria Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas et al. Case C-260/89
- 3.3.2.1 Background
- 3.3.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 3.3.1.3 ECJ Ruling
- 3.3.1.4 Post-Ruling
- 3.4 Hope
- 4. Ireland
- 4.1 Introduction
- 4.1.1 Rate of References
- 4.1.2 Areas of Law/Courts Involved
- 4.2 Masterfoods Ltd v. HB Ice Cream Ltd Case C-344/98
- 4.2.1 Background
- 4.2.2 Question for the ECJ
- 4.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 4.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 5. Luxembourg
- 5.1 Introduction
- 5.2 Ministère public Luxembourgeois v. Madeleine Muller, Veuve J.P. Hein et al. Case C-10/71
- 5.2.1 Background
- 5.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 5.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 5.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 6. Spain
- 6.1 Introduction
- 6.1.1 Rate of References
- 6.1.2 Areas of Law/Courts Involved
- 6.2 Case 1: Dirección General de Defensa de la Competencia v. Asociación Española de Banca Privada et al., Case 67/91
- 6.2.1 Background
- 6.2.2 Questions for the ECJ
- 6.2.3 ECJ Ruling
- 6.2.4 Post-Ruling
- 6.3 Case 2: Esso Española S.A. v. Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias Case 134/94
- 6.3.1 Background
- 6.3.2 Question for the ECJ
- 6.3.3 ECJ Ruling
- 6.3.4 Post-Ruling
- Index
System requirements
File format: ePUB
Copy protection: Adobe-DRM (Digital Rights Management)
System requirements:
- Computer (Windows; MacOS X; Linux): Install the free reader Adobe Digital Editions prior to download (see eBook Help).
- Tablet/smartphone (Android; iOS): Install the free app Adobe Digital Editions or the app PocketBook before downloading (see eBook Help).
- E-reader: Bookeen, Kobo, Pocketbook, Sony, Tolino and many more (not Kindle).
The file format ePub works well for novels and non-fiction books – i.e., „flowing” text without complex layout. On an e-reader or smartphone, line and page breaks automatically adjust to fit the small displays.
This eBook uses Adobe-DRM, a „hard” copy protection. If the necessary requirements are not met, unfortunately you will not be able to open the eBook. You will therefore need to prepare your reading hardware before downloading.
Please note: We strongly recommend that you authorise using your personal Adobe ID after installation of any reading software.
For more information, see our ebook Help page.