Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61988J0202

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 19 MARCH 1991. FRENCH REPUBLIC V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. COMPETITION IN THE MARKETS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS TERMINAL EQUIPMENT. CASE C-202/88.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1991 PAGES I-1223

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		COMPETITION;RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS;FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		388L0301;388L0301;388L0301;388L0301

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. ARTICLE 90(3) OF THE TREATY EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO SPECIFY IN GENERAL TERMS, BY ADOPTING DIRECTIVES, THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED ON THE MEMBER STATES BY ARTICLE 90(1) AS REGARDS PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS AND UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH THEY HAVE GRANTED SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. THAT POWER, WHICH IS EXERCISED WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SITUATION PREVAILING IN ANY PARTICULAR MEMBER STATE, DIFFERS BY ITS VERY NATURE FROM THAT EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION WHEN SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL A PARTICULAR OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY.

2. THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 90(1) OF THE TREATY PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS MEANING THAT SUCH RIGHTS ARE NECESSARILY COMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY. THEY MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF DIFFERENT RULES OF THE TREATY, TO WHICH ARTICLE 90(1) REFERS.

3. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION BY ARTICLE 90(3) OF THE TREATY, NAMELY SUPERVISION OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE MEMBER STATES IN RELATION TO UNDERTAKINGS WITH WHICH THEY HAVE CERTAIN SPECIFIC LINKS, IS DIFFERENT FROM, AND MORE SPECIFIC THAN, THAT OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE COUNCIL BY EITHER ARTICLE 100A OR ARTICLE 87. FURTHERMORE, THE POSSIBILITY THAT RULES CONTAINING PROVISIONS WHICH IMPINGE UPON THE SPECIFIC SPHERE OF ARTICLE 90 MIGHT BE LAID DOWN BY THE COUNCIL BY VIRTUE OF ITS GENERAL POWER UNDER CERTAIN ARTICLES OF THE TREATY DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WHICH ARTICLE 90 CONFERS ON THE COMMISSION.

4. THE GRANT BY A MEMBER STATE OF EXCLUSIVE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING RIGHTS IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TERMINALS SECTOR IS CAPABLE OF RESTRICTING INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY. IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH RIGHTS DEPRIVES TRADERS WITHOUT SUCH RIGHTS OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING THEIR PRODUCTS PURCHASED BY CONSUMERS, AND SECONDLY THE DIVERSITY AND TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE PRODUCTS IN THAT SECTOR ARE SUCH THAT THERE IS NO CERTAINTY THAT THE HOLDER OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS CAN OFFER THE ENTIRE RANGE OF MODELS AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET, INFORM CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE STATE AND OPERATION OF ALL THE TERMINALS AND GUARANTEE THEIR QUALITY. ACCORDINGLY, ARTICLE 2 OF DIRECTIVE 88/301 RIGHTLY REQUIRES SUCH RIGHTS TO BE WITHDRAWN, WHILST ARTICLE 3 SETS LIMITS THERETO WHICH ARE IMPOSED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SAFETY, PROTECTION OF NETWORKS AND INTERWORKING OF EQUIPMENT. FURTHERMORE, ARTICLE
30 ET SEQ. OF THE TREATY HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3. THOSE ARTICLES SET OUT TO ESTABLISH A MARKET CHARACTERIZED BY THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WHERE THE TERMS OF COMPETITION ARE NOT DISTORTED, WHICH MEANS THAT THE COMPETITION ASPECT OF ARTICLE 3(F) HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN ADDITION, IF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS REGARDING THE CONNECTION, BRINGING INTO SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT WERE RETAINED, TRADERS ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF SUCH EQUIPMENT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION WHICH ARE NOT DISTORTED, SINCE THERE WOULD BE NO CERTAINTY THAT THE HOLDER OF THOSE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WOULD BE ABLE TO GUARANTEE THE RELIABILITY OF THOSE SERVICES FOR EVERY TYPE OF TERMINAL AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET AND THE UTILIZATION OF ALL THOSE TERMINALS, NOR WOULD HE HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO DO SO. CONSEQUENTLY THE DIRECTIVE RIGHTLY REQUIRES THOSE RIGHTS TO BE WITHDRAWN ALSO. THAT SAME NEED TO ENSURE THAT COMPETITION IS NOT DISTORTED AND TO SECURE EQUALITY OF OP
PORTUNITY AS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ECONOMIC OPERATORS JUSTIFIES THE REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE DIRECTIVE TO THE EFFECT THAT MEMBER STATES MUST ENTRUST RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRAWING UP TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, MONITORING THEIR APPLICATION AND GRANTING TYPE-APPROVAL TO A BODY INDEPENDENT OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UNDERTAKINGS OFFERING COMPETING GOODS AND/OR SERVICES IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR.

5. WHERE UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH MEMBER STATES HAVE GRANTED SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS ENGAGE IN ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE, ARTICLE 90 OF THE TREATY, WHICH CONFERS POWERS ON THE COMMISSION ONLY IN RELATION TO STATE MEASURES, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL BASIS FOR REQUIRING SUCH CONDUCT TO BE BROUGHT TO AN END. SUCH CONDUCT CAN BE CALLED IN QUESTION ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS ADOPTED UNDER ARTICLES 85 AND 86 OF THE TREATY. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NECESSARY TO ANNUL ARTICLE 7 OF DIRECTIVE 88/301, BY WHICH THE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO REQUIRE MEMBER STATES TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO TERMINATE, WITH MAXIMUM NOTICE OF ONE YEAR, LEASING OR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS WHICH CONCERN TERMINAL EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO EXCLUSIVE OR SPECIAL RIGHTS GRANTED TO CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS AT THE TIME OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACTS, SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONCLUSION OF LONG-TERM CONTRACTS, WHICH ARE REGARDED AS ANTI-COMPETITIVE, WAS THE RESULT OF ENCOURAGEMENT OR COERCION ON THE PART OF THE NAT
IONAL AUTHORITIES.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):