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):		61961J0013

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 6 APRIL 1962. KLEDINGVERKOOPBEDRIJF DE GEUS EN UITDENBOGERD V 1) ROBERT BOSCH GMBH - 2) N.V. MAATSCHAPPIJ TOT VOORTZETTING VAN DE ZAKEN DER FIRMA WILLEM VAN RIJN. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HAGUE. CASE 13-61.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1962 PAGES 0045 DANISH EDITION....: 1962 PAGES 0293

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

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		157E085;157E085;157E088;157E089

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE TREATY MAKES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE EXCLUSIVELY DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF A REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 177, WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY COURT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL COURT HAS ACQUIRED THE FORCE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER NATIONAL LAW.

2. THE TREATY DOES NOT PRESCRIBE, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION, A DEFINITE FORM IN WHICH THE NATIONAL COURT MUST PUT ITS REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING. SINCE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS'THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY' IN ARTICLE 177 MAY ITSELF RAISE A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION, THE NATIONAL COURT IS FREE TO PUT ITS REQUEST IN A SIMPLE AND DIRECT FORM, LEAVING IT TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO RULE ON THAT REQUEST ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS JURISDICTION, I.E. INSOFAR AS IT INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY.

3. ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 85 ET SEQ. OF THE TREATY IS A MATTER FOR THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, ARTICLE 177, WHICH CONCERNS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY, NEVERTHELESS REMAINS APPLICABLE, SO THAT THE NATIONAL COURT IS ENTITLED OR OBLIGED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO REQUEST A PRELIMINARY RULING. THIS VIEW IS CONFIRMED BOTH BY THE WORDING AND BY THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 177, SINCE THIS PROVISION CONTAINS NO RESTRICTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 85 ET SEQ. OF THE TREATY, AND A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION, AS ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 177, IS PARTICULARLY NECESSARY IN CASES WHERE THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY IS LEFT TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES.

4. A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHEN ACTING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY.

5. ARTICLES 88 AND 89 OF THE TREATY, WHICH CONFER POWERS RESPECTIVELY ON THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AND ON THE COMMISSION FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 85, ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS PROVISION IS OPERATIVE FROM THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY.

6. IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY - A RULE OF LAW OF WHICH DUE ACCOUNT MUST BE TAKEN IN THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY - TO RENDER CERTAIN AGREEMENTS AND DECISIONS AUTOMATICALLY VOID BEFORE IT HAS EVEN BEEN POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE TO WHICH AGREEMENTS TO PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 85 AS A WHOLE ARE APPLICABLE.

7. UP TO THE TIME OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE REGULATION ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 87, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 85 (3) OF THE TREATY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 85 (2) OF THE TREATY APPLY ONLY TO AGREEMENTS AND DECISIONS WHICH THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES, UNDER ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY, HAVE EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 85 (1) OF THE TREATY AND NOT TO BE CAPABLE OF BENEFITING FROM A DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 85 (3), OR WHICH THE COMMISSION, BY A DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 89 (2), HAS DECLARED TO BE CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 85.

8. AGREEMENTS AND DECISIONS WHICH FALL UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE 85 (1), AND WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE FIRST REGULATION IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 85 AND 86 OF THE TREATY - PROVIDED THEY WERE NOTIFIED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 5 OF THAT REGULATION - ARE ONLY TO BE REGARDED AS AUTOMATICALLY VOID, FIRST, WHEN AND INSOFAR AS THE COMMISSION DECIDES THAT THEY DO NOT QUALIFY EITHER FOR SUCH A DECISION AS IS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 85 (3), OR FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 7 (1) OF THE REGULATION, OR, SECONDLY, WHEN THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES DECIDE TO EXERCISE THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THEM BY ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 9 OF THE REGULATION.

9. AGREEMENTS AND DECISIONS WHICH FALL UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE 85 (1), WHICH WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE FIRST REGULATION IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 85 AND 86 OF THE TREATY, AND WHICH DO NOT FALL UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 5 (2) OF THIS REGULATION, BUT WERE NOT NOTIFIED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 5 (1), ARE AUTOMATICALLY VOID FROM THE TIME OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE REGULATION.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):