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):		61978J0209

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 29 OCTOBER 1980. HEINTZ VAN LANDEWYCK SARL AND OTHERS V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. COMPETITION - FEDETAB AGREEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION. JOINED CASES 209 TO 215 AND 218-78.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1980 PAGES 3125 - 3281

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

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM RULING IN A SINGLE DECISION ON ONE AND THE SAME INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON COMPETITION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE COMPLAINTS LODGED DURING ONE AND THE SAME PROCEEDING AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GIVE SEPARATE NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS SO LONG AS THE UNDERTAKINGS OR ASSOCIATIONS CONCERNED HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS REGARDING THE VARIOUS COMPLAINTS.

2. RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE REQUIRES THE NOTIFICATION OF COMPLAINTS TO SET FORTH CLEARLY, ALBEIT SUCCINCTLY, THE ESSENTIAL FACTS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION RELIES PROVIDED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IT SUPPLIES THE DETAILS NECESSARY TO THE DEFENCE OF THOSE CONCERNED.

3. INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF A TRADE SECRET GIVEN TO A TRADE OR PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION BY ITS MEMBERS AND THUS HAVING LOST ITS CONFIDENTIAL NATURE VIS-A-VIS THEM DOES NOT LOSE IT WITH REGARD TO THIRD PARTIES. WHERE SUCH AN ASSOCIATION FORWARDS SUCH INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FINDING OF AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON COMPETITION COMMENCED UNDER REGULATION NO 17, THE COMMISSION CANNOT RELY ON THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 19 AND 20 OF THAT REGULATION TO JUSTIFY PASSING ON THE INFORMATION TO THIRD PARTIES WHO ARE MAKING COMPLAINTS. ARTICLE 19 (2) GIVES THE LATTER A RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND NOT A RIGHT TO RECEIVE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

4. MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS ACTING IN FACT IN THE NAME OF ITS MEMBERS CANNOT BE EXEMPTED FROM NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 4 (2) OF REGULATION NO 17 WHERE THE PARTIES INCLUDE MANUFACTURERS OF TWO MEMBER STATES, AND MORE THAN TWO UNDERTAKINGS.

5. IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ACTUAL TERMS OF ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 27 AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1133/68 THAT NOTIFICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM A/B AND MUST CONTAIN THE INFORMATION ASKED FOR THEREIN. THE USE OF THAT FORM IS THEREFORE MANDATORY AND IS AN ESSENTIAL PRIOR CONDITION FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTIFICATION. IT TAKES ACCOUNT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAYING DOWN DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 85 (3), OF THE NEED, EXPRESSED IN ARTICLE 87 (2) (B) OF THE TREATY, TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION AND TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATION TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE EXTENT.

6. ALTHOUGH PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 190 OF THE EEC TREATY THE COMMISSION IS BOUND TO STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH ITS DECISIONS ARE BASED, MENTIONING THE FACTS, LAW AND CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE LED IT TO ADOPT A DECISION FINDING AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON COMPETITION IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCUSS ALL THE ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BY EVERY PARTY DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

7. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT MAKE A SINGLE DECISION COVERING SEVERAL INFRINGEMENTS OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY PROVIDED THAT THE DECISION PERMITS EACH ADDRESSEE TO OBTAIN A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST IT.

8. THE COMMISSION IS BOUND TO RESPECT THE PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES PROVIDED FOR BY COMMUNITY LAW ON COMPETITION; IT CANNOT, HOWEVER, BE CLASSED AS A TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, UNDER WHICH EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR HEARING BY AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL.

9. A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AND CONSTITUTING A FAITHFUL EXPRESSION OF THE MEMBERS' INTENTION TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES COMPULSORILY ON THE MARKET IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TERMS OF THE RECOMMENDATION FULFILS THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 85 (1) OF THE EEC TREATY.

10. ARTICLE 85 (1) OF THE EEC TREATY ALSO APPLIES TO NON-PROFIT-MAKING ASSOCIATIONS IN SO FAR AS THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES OR THOSE OF THE UNDERTAKINGS BELONGING TO THEM ARE CALCULATED TO PRODUCE THE RESULTS WHICH IT AIMS TO SUPPRESS.

11. IN ORDER THAT AN AGREEMENT, DECISION OR CONCERTED PRACTICE MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IT MUST BE POSSIBLE TO FORESEE WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF PROBABILITY ON THE BASIS OF A SET OF OBJECTIVE FACTORS OF LAW OR OF FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT, DECISION OR CONCERTED PRACTICE IN QUESTION MAY HAVE AN INFLUENCE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, ON THE PATTERN OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):