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):		61992A0034

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SECOND CHAMBER) OF 27 OCTOBER 1994. FIATAGRI UK LTD AND NEW HOLLAND FORD LTD V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. COMPETITION - INFORMATION EXCHANGE SYSTEM - ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECT - REFUSAL TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION. CASE T-34/92.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1994 PAGES II-0905

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		COMPETITION;RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS;CONCERTED PRACTICES;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		392D0157

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A COMMISSION DECISION, THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ENJOYED BY COMMUNITY MEASURES MUST APPLY TO THE DECISION. IF THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT REBUT THAT PRESUMPTION, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY JUDICATURE TO ORDER MEASURES OF INQUIRY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE FORMALITIES LAID DOWN IN THE COMMISSION' S RULES OF PROCEDURE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE IN POINT.

2. THE FACT THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF AN UNDERTAKING INVOLVED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE COMPETITION RULES WAS BROUGHT DIRECTLY TO ITS ATTENTION AND NOT TO THAT OF ITS LAWYER CANNOT CALL INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE INFORMATION THEREBY BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION.

3. ALTHOUGH A SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED MAY BE GIVEN WHERE THAT DECISION FOLLOWS A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS, IN PARTICULAR BY MAKING REFERENCE TO THAT LINE OF DECISIONS, THE COMMISSION MUST ELABORATE ITS REASONING MORE EXPLICITLY WHERE A DECISION GOES APPRECIABLY FURTHER THAN PREVIOUS DECISIONS.

4. ALTHOUGH, WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 85(2) OF THE TREATY, THE NULLITY OF AN AGREEMENT MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THOSE OF ITS PROVISIONS WHICH ARE ANTI-COMPETITIVE IN NATURE WHEREVER THOSE PROVISIONS ARE SEVERABLE FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE AGREEMENT, AND ALTHOUGH, CONSEQUENTLY, WHERE THEY ARE NOT SEVERABLE, IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO SET OUT IN THE PREAMBLE TO ITS DECISION THE REASONS FOR WHICH THOSE PARTS DID NOT APPEAR TO IT TO BE SEVERABLE FROM THE WHOLE AGREEMENT, THAT INTERPRETATION IS NOT READILY TRANSPOSABLE TO A CASE IN WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 85(3) OF THE TREATY IS BEING CONSIDERED. IN THE LATTER CASE, IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION, WHEN RESPONDING TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE NOTIFYING UNDERTAKINGS, TO REACH ITS DECISION BY REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT AS NOTIFIED TO IT, UNLESS DURING ITS INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER IT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN FROM THE PARTIES PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT AS NOTIFIED.

5. ARTICLE 85(1) OF THE TREATY LAYS DOWN A FUNDAMENTAL PROHIBITION OF AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE ANTI-COMPETITIVE IN CHARACTER. THAT PROVISION, ADOPTED AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, IS THEREFORE BINDING ON THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY BINDING DECISION WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY DIRECT AT THEM. AN ORDER TO THE NOTIFYING UNDERTAKINGS CONTAINED IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF A DECISION REFUSING AN EXEMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 85(3) OF THE TREATY PROHIBITING THEM FROM ENTERING INTO ANY FORM OF COOPERATION WITH AN OBJECT IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE NOTIFIED AGREEMENT MUST THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED AS PURELY DECLARATORY.

6. WHERE THERE IS NO ANTI-COMPETITIVE OBJECT, AN AGREEMENT MAY BE CHALLENGED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ITS EFFECTS ON THE MARKET. IN SUCH A CASE, ITS ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE COMPETITION WHICH WOULD IN FACT OCCUR IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AGREEMENT IN DISPUTE.

7. AN AGREEMENT CREATING AN INFORMATION EXCHANGE SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT CONCERN PRICES AND DOES NOT UNDERPIN ANY OTHER ANTI-COMPETITIVE ARRANGEMENT IS LIKELY, ON A TRULY COMPETITIVE MARKET, TO LEAD TO THE INTENSIFICATION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN SUPPLIERS, SINCE THE FACT THAT A TRADER TAKES INTO ACCOUNT INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM IN ORDER TO ADJUST HIS CONDUCT ON THE MARKET IS NOT LIKELY, HAVING REGARD TO THE ATOMIZED NATURE OF THE SUPPLY, TO REDUCE OR REMOVE FOR THE OTHER TRADERS ANY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE FORESEEABLE NATURE OF ITS COMPETITORS' CONDUCT. ON THE OTHER HAND, GENERAL USE, AS BETWEEN THE MAJOR SUPPLIERS, OF EXCHANGES OF PRECISE INFORMATION AT SHORT INTERVALS IS, ON A HIGHLY CONCENTRATED OLIGOPOLISTIC MARKET ON WHICH COMPETITION IS ALREADY GREATLY REDUCED AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FACILITATED, LIKELY TO IMPAIR CONSIDERABLY THE COMPETITION WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN TRADERS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SHARING, ON A REGULAR AND FREQUENT BASIS, OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OPERATION OF THE MARKET HAS
THE EFFECT OF PERIODICALLY REVEALING TO ALL COMPETITORS THE MARKET POSITIONS AND STRATEGIES OF THE VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL COMPETITORS.

8. THE FOUR CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 85(3) OF THE TREATY FOR THE GRANT OF AN INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTION TO AN AGREEMENT PROPERLY NOTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION ARE CUMULATIVE, SO THAT IF ONE OF THEM IS NOT SATISFIED, THE COMMISSION MAY LAWFULLY REJECT THE APPLICATION MADE TO IT.

9. WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTION FROM THE PROHIBITION ON RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS IS MADE, IT IS PRIMARILY FOR THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AGREEMENT SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 85(3) OF THE TREATY.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):