April 1994

General antitrust

The EU Court of First Instance holds that the Commission must explain its reasoning when it imposes a fine on a successor to the entity that infringed competition law (All Weather Sports)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
Case T-38/92 All Weather Sports Benelux BV v Commission of the European Communities* If it relates to several addressees and there is a problem with regard to liability for the infringement, a decision taken in application of the competition rules in the Treaty must include an adequate (...)

Anticompetitive practices

The President of the Brussels Commercial Court rules that resale price maintenance is not illicit if the agreement predates the entry into effect of the Belgian Competition Act and was notified to the Competition Authority (Aniserco/Laroy-Duvo)
Johnson & Johnson (Brussels)
Description of the impugned case Aniserco exploits a chain of shops specialised in petfoods. Some shops are run by Anserico itself, while others are exploited by franchisees. Laroy-Duvo imports petfoods from the USA and in particular, it imports dog food of the brand Eukanuba and Iams. (...)

Unilateral Practices

The EU Court of Justice states that for a collective dominant position to exist, the undertakings in the group must be linked in such a way that they adopt the same conduct on the market (Almelo / Ysselmij)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
Case C-393/92 Municipality of Almelo and Others V Energiebedrijf IJsselmij NV* 1. A national court which, in a case provided for by law, determines an appeal against an arbitration award must be regarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty, even if under (...)

The EU Court of Justice states that since the Commission has sole jurisdiction to find an infringement of competition law based on the ECSC Treaty, the national courts may not entertain an action for damages in the absence of a Commission decision (Banks / British Coal)
European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
Case C-128/92 H. J. Banks & Co. Ltd v British Coal Corporation* 1. Given that both the extraction of unworked coal and the undertakings engaged in production in the coal industry fall within the scope of the ECSC Treaty, the provisions of that Treaty, in particular Article 4(d) (...)