Fabien Zivy

The immediate outcome of the Microsoft case is generally positive for the European Commission, subject to an appeal. However, two procedural points should be noted which, because of their longer-term implications, could have a significant impact on the implementation of the competition rules (...)

Article 9(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (Cons. EC, Reg. 1/2003 of 16 Dec. 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty) allows the European Commission to close proceedings without finding an infringement or imposing a penalty where an (...)

Four judgments of the Court of First Instance recall two key aspects of the case law concerning complaints about possible infringements of the EC competition rules and the conditions under which the European Commission is allowed to reject them. Firstly, the procedure provided for this (...)

Four judgments of the Court of First Instance recall two key aspects of the case law concerning complaints about possible infringements of the EC competition rules and the conditions under which the European Commission is allowed to reject them. Firstly, the procedure provided for this (...)

ECJ, 4th paragraph, 10 May 2007, SGL Carbon v Commission, Case C-328/05 P A previous issue of this column had led to commenting on certain interesting aspects, in terms of procedural and sanctions law, of the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in (...)

These two Orders reiterate the conditions under which an application for recovery of costs incurred in respect of legal fees is considered (Ord. First Data, paragraphs 26 to 31, and Ord. Danske Busvognmænd, paragraphs 24, 25 and 27 to 30) or experts (order Danske Busvognmænd, paragraphs 40 to (...)

A previous issue of this column (see Concurrences, No. 2-2006, p. 135) had led to pointing out the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities dismissing as inadmissible the action for annulment brought by Schneider against the Commission’s decisions resuming the procedure (...)

CFI, 4th c., 8 March 2007, France Télécom (formerly Wanadoo SA) v. Commission, Case T-340/04 CFI, 4th c., 8 March 2007, France Télécom v. Commission, case T-339/04 It was likely that the networking of competition authorities in the European Community would quickly lead some operators to test (...)

The Groupe Danone judgment, which led the Court of Justice of the European Communities to begin clearing the ground for recidivism (see this review, No. 2 2006, chron. Entente, p. 108), is also an opportunity for the Court to confirm, in terms so sober that they could almost escape the (...)

CFI, 14 December 2006, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission, cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02. It is recalled that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities recently ruled that a political party claiming to be a bank customer has a legitimate (...)

CFI, 14 December 2006, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission, cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02. Judicial review of the implementation of the Leniency Notice is still quite recent. The state of play recently drawn up by the Court of First Instance, recently (...)

CFI, 13 December 2006, FNCBV v Commission, cases T-217/03 and T-245/03. CFI, 14 December 2006, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission, cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02. Especially interesting in terms of the substance of competition law, especially sanctions (see (...)

CFI, 13 December 2006, FNCBV v Commission, cases T-217/03 and T-245/03. The provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities relating to pleadings (essentially Articles 44, 46, 104, 115 and 116) provide that pleadings must contain, inter alia, (...)

CFI, 12 December 2006, Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission, Case T-155/04. CFI, 14 December 2006, Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission, Case T-237/02 A previous issue of this column (see ConcurrencesNo. 4-2005, p. 112, note F. Z.) provided an opportunity to point out that the (...)

CFI, 5 December 2006, Westfalen Gassen Nederland v. Commission, Case T-303/02 CFI, 12 December 2006, Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid a.o. v. Commission, Case T-95/03 The conditions under which a party to the proceedings may supplement (...)

ECJ, September 7, 2006, Laboratoires Boiron, Case C-526/04 The competitive relations which may exist between pharmaceutical companies and wholesalers of pharmaceutical specialities are not only relevant to antitrust proceedings before the Community courts but also to State aid proceedings (...)

CFI, 23 November 2006, Ter Lembeek International NV v Commission, Case T-217/02. The Ter Lembeek decision (see, on the merits, this review, State Aid column, note J.-Y. C.) illustrates the well-known tactic used by litigation specialists whereby a judge who decides to innovate sometimes does (...)

CFI, 16 November 2006, Peróxidos Orgánicos, SA v. Commission, Case T-120/04. The judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in the Organic Peroxides case, in which the Commission had penalised European chemists who had implemented a cartel aimed at (...)

CFI (order), 8 November 2006, Brandt industries v Commission, Case T-273/04. It is relatively infrequent for applications to intervene, which are the responsibility of the President and the Presidents of Chambers of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, to be referred to (...)

ECJ, 5 October 2006, Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich Gmbh (TAL) a. o. v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol a. o., case C-368/04 The number of requests for preliminary rulings on State aid matters, and more specifically on State aid litigation, is increasing; indeed, this is one of the (...)

ECJ, 5 October 2006, Commission v. France, Case C-232/05. The action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against France for failure to comply with the decision finding that that Member State had granted to the American company Scott Paper (’Scott’) aid incompatible (...)

CFI, 27 September 2006, Avebe v Commission, "Sodium gluconate", Case T-314/01. Although very much concerned with the litigation of fines, the Sodium Gluconate case (see this review, supra, chron. Cartels, note M.D.) also allowed the judge to address an interesting question of procedural law. (...)

CFI, 27 September 2006, Ferriere Nord v. Commission, Case T-153/04 Is it useful to proclaim its willingness to increase the fines imposed on companies which violate the Community competition rules if at the same time there is a delay in recovering the product? Such negligence is probably not (...)

CFI, 27 September 2006, Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission, Joined Cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP, T-60/02 OP and T-61/02 OP. The Court of First Instance of the European Communities has just made some clarifications on the nature and conduct of the opposition procedure, which is (...)

CFI, 27 September 2006, Vereniging Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke Randmeren a. o. v. Commission, Case T-117/04 We will limit ourselves here to a brief report on the ruling Vereniging Werkgroep (’VW’), which is involved in a dispute concerning an application for annulment (...)

CFI, 27 September 2006, GlaxoSmithKline Services, Case T-168/01 One of the fundamental principles of Community annulment litigation is that the court may review the legality of the act referred to it only in the light of the factual elements "existing" at the date on which that act was (...)

CFI (order), 26 September 2006, Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, Case T-94/05. A few months ago, we reported on the rather dry call to order that the Commission had received from the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in the Deutsche Bahn judgment (CFI, 1st. ch. (...)

ECJ, 21 September 2006, Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnish Gebied v Commission, Case C-105/04 P ECJ, 21 September 2006, Technische Unie v Commission, Case C-113/04 P ECJ, 21 September 2006, JCB Service v Commission, Case C-167/04 P The three judgments (...)

CFI, 13 September 2006, British Aggregates Association v Commission, Case T-210/02 The judgment in British Aggregates (’BA’) deserves mention because of its dual interest from the point of view of procedural law on State aid, which, as is well known, is probably not the simplest or most (...)

ECJ, 13 July 2006, Manfredi a. o., joined cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 The judgment which is to lead the Court of Justice of the European Communities to address the question of an action for compensation for damage caused by a breach of the Community competition rules, following on from the (...)

CFI, 4 July 2006, easyJet Airline v Commission, Case T-177/04 CFI (ord.), 18 September 2006, Wirtschafts-kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool v Commission, Case T-350/03. Unlike the low-cost airline easyJet, which was found admissible to bring an action for annulment of the (...)

CFI (order), 26 June 2006, Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission, Case T-416/05 R CFI (Ord.), 2 August 2006, Aughinish Alumina v Commission, Case T-69/06 R The limited scope of the chronic presence does not allow the two orders mentioned, which dismiss applications for interim relief on the (...)

Another judgment of the Court of First Instance relating both to the Club Lombard case and to the question of access to information gathered by the Commission in the context of a procedure for the application of the competition rules, the Österreichische Postparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und (...)

The Bank Austria Creditanstalt (hereinafter ’BAC’) judgment reflects the increase in ’ancillary’ competition law disputes, i.e. disputes relating not to the substance of the law but to the procedure by which the administration decides on the matter. At issue in this case was the question of (...)

The two judgments commented on above, which have their origin in the investigation procedure initiated by the Commission against Austrian banks suspected of having participated in the Lombard Club, are also of interest from a substantive point of view. They broaden the range of acts which may (...)

Brief mention should be made of the order of inadmissibility delivered by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance in the Deutsche Post and Securicor Omega Express case. That order is intended to be published in full in the ECR - which is now intended to be selective and therefore (...)

The issue of access to the Community court system for those affected by State aid, which has already been raised in previous issues of this column, continues to be a topical issue. This time it was the Court of First Instance that was called upon to look into the matter. Having received an (...)

The distinction between a decision and an informal communication in the field of State aid The Deustche Bahn judgment of the Court of First Instance will also be of interest from the point of view of procedural law. The First Chamber of the Court of First Instance, acting in its extended (...)

Appeal for annulment of the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment brought by German companies operating on the Italian market for express document and parcel services at national and international level against a Commission decision finding, at (...)

Almost a year after the max.mobil judgment, in which the Court of Justice sanctioned an undertaking for the unification of the status of complainants in the context of the application of the Community competition rules (see Concurrences, No 2-2005, chron. Proceedings, p. 86), the content of (...)

It will be recalled that, in the Schneider case, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission’s decisions declaring the concentration, by way of a public offer of exchange of shares, between Schneider and Legrand incompatible with the common market and consequently ordering Schneider to (...)

The Concrete reinforcing bars case, in which the Commission had condemned eleven undertakings and an association of undertakings which had classically agreed to fix prices and limit production and sales on a product market covered by the now defunct ECSC Treaty (EC Commission, Dec. 17, 2002, (...)

CFI, 14 December 2005, Honeywell International v Commission, Case T-209/01 Honeywell tried everything, but nothing worked: its action for annulment against the Commission’s decision declaring its merger with General Electric incompatible with the common market (Commission Decision (...)

It will be remembered that, following the reduction by the Court of First Instance of the fine imposed on Irish Sugar (Commission of the European Communities, Dec. No 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997, Irish Sugar, Case IV/34.621, 35.059/F-3, OJ L 258, 22.7.1997, p. 1), the Court of Justice of the (...)

Reference should be made to a new order on intervention in the Microsoft case, which illustrates by two examples the limits of the right of intervention provided for by the Statute of the Court of Justice (Article 40) and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance (Articles 115 and (...)

The action for annulment dismissed as inadmissible is still at issue in the order of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in the Tramarin case. That order has an innocuous appearance which must not be misleading; the full publication in the ECR, to which the order is also promised, (...)

In the context of the debate on the relationship between administrative and judicial proceedings and, more generally, on the manner in which the power of full jurisdiction is exercised, already referred to in previous editions of this column, mention should be made very briefly of the order (...)

The Tribunal’s judgment in the Groupe Danone case will be a landmark not only for what it says but also for what it does. What it says - i.e. the lessons, clarifications and reminders it contains about the law of fines - will not be commented on in detail here. We will therefore confine (...)

The relevance of this case is not only the reminder of the distinction drawn between the absence of an interest in bringing proceedings, assessed at the date of bringing the action (CFI, 30 April 1998, Cityflyer Express v Commission, Case T-16/96, paragraph 30, ECR p. II-757) and sanctioned by (...)

Is the Commission entitled to adopt a competition enforcement decision on a time-barred infringement? If so, is the exercise of that right subject to certain conditions? These questions were at the heart of the Sumitomo case. That case was referred back to a formation of five Judges (the (...)

Mention should also be made, in the Greek Ferries case, of a second order made by the Sixth Chamber of the Court. That Chamber dismissed the appeal brought by Marlines against the judgment dismissing its action for annulment, in so far as it concerned it, of the Greek Ferries decision (Fifth (...)

The articulation of administrative and litigation procedures in competition matters From a procedural point of view, the SAS judgment will be of particular interest because of the questions of coordination of the procedures - administrative and contentious - which it raises, both for the (...)

ECJ, 14 July 2005, Acerinox v. Commission, Case C-57/02 P ECJ, 14 July 2005, ThyssenKrupp Stainless and ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni v Commission, Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P If the epilogue to the Alloy Surcharge case is worthy of interest, it is mainly because it illustrates (...)

ECJ, 28 June 2005, Dansk Rørindustri a. o. v. Commission, Joined cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Another judgment marking the end point of a cartel case is that handed down on appeal by the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in the Pre-insulated pipes case. The (...)

Previous issues of this column have discussed various aspects of the right of intervention granted to third parties in Community litigation who can show an interest in the settlement of a dispute (chron. Proceedings, Concurrences, n° 1-2004, p. 94and No. 2-2005, p. 90). The third party who (...)

Cancellation litigation is adapting to the Internet. This could be summarised in two recent decisions in which the CFI ruled, for the first time, that "the fact that the Commission gives third parties full access to the text of a decision placed on its website, combined with the publication of (...)

CFI, 15 June 2005, Tokai Carbon a. o. v. Commission, "Speciality Graphite", Joined cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Almost a year after examining the first part of the graphite case (Graphite electrodes, cited above, under appeal), the CFI gave judgment on the second part (...)

CFI, 21 April 2005, Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission, Case T-28/03. The Holcim judgment, which provides a remarkable illustration of the way in which the CFI deals with economic liability litigation, will undoubtedly be a landmark in the future. abundantly commented on. Fined for their (...)

CFI (order), 5th paragraph, 10 March 2005, IMS Health v Commission, Case T-184/01. It is rare for an application for interim relief to be found to be well-founded by both the trial judge and the judge hearing the appeal. IMS Health was one of the lucky ones. This application sought a stay (...)

CFI (ord.), pres. 4th ed, 9 March 2005, Microsoft v. Commission, Case T-201/04 By order of 9 March 2005, the CFI granted nine applications to intervene in the Microsoft case. The main point of that order is the manner in which the right to intervene conferred on representative associations (...)

ECJ, 22 February 2005, Commission v. T-Mobile Austria (max.mobil Telekommunikation Service), case C-141/02 P Practitioners called upon to advise public companies or their private competitors will undoubtedly read with interest the ECJ’s ruling in the max.mobil case. And perhaps even with (...)

CFI (ord.), pres. 4th c., February 22, 2005, Hynix Semiconductor v. Council, Case T-383/03 CFI (ord.), pres. 3th c., 4 March 2005, BUPA v. Commission, case T-289/03 Two Orders recall the terms under which the CFI examines a request for confidential treatment when it is contested by one of (...)

CFI, 26 January 2005, Piau v. Commission, Case T-193/02 CFI, 14 April 2005, Sniace v. Commission, Case T-88/01 Two judgments of the CFI apply the rule that the object of the intervention is to support the conclusions of one of the main parties (Article 40(4) of the Statute of the ECJ), so (...)

CFI (ord.), pres. 22 December 2004, Microsoft v. Commission, Case T-201/04 R On 25 June 2004, Microsoft applied to the Court of First Instance for suspension of the operation of the Commission’s decision requiring it to disclose to its competitors certain information relating to the (...)

CFI (ord.), 2nd ch., 6 September 2004, Imperial Chemical Industries v. Commission, case T-36/91 DEP and T-37/91 DEP CFI (ord.), 4th ch., 29 October 2004, Schneider Electric v. Commission, case T-310/01 DEP CFI (ord.), 4th ch., 29 October 2004, Schneider Electric v. Commission, case T-77/02 DEP (...)

CFI (ord.), pres. 1st ch., 6 May 2004, Deutsche Telekom v. Commission, case T-271/03 CFI (ord.), 5th ch., 28 May 2004, Akzo Nobel Chemicals a.o. v. Commission, Case T-253/03 CFI (ordained), pres. 4th ch., 14 July 2004, Hynix Semiconductor v. Council, Case T-383/03 CFI (ord.), pres, 26 July (...)