Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — Dismissed — (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

2. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Burden of proving the infringement on the Commission — (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

3. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Agreement designed to hinder parallel imports — Agreement may exist without a system of subsequent monitoring and penalties — (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

4. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Meaning — Unilateral conduct — Not included — Conclusion by tacit acceptance — Need for an invitation to fulfil anti-competitive goals jointly — (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

5. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Unilateral conduct restricting competition within the context of continuous business relations — No prohibited agreement — (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

Summary

1. Under Article 225 EC and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, whereby an appeal before the Court of Justice is limited to points of law, the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts, save where the evidence has been misinterpreted. When the Court of First Instance has established or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC only to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.

see para. 47

2. Where there is a dispute as to the existence of an infringement of the competition rules, it is for the Commission to prove the infringement which it claims to have found and to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating to the requisite legal standard the existence of circumstances constituting such an infringement.

see para. 62

3. For there to be an agreement designed to hinder parallel imports, prohibited by Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC), it is not necessary for there to be a system of subsequent monitoring and penalties, although the establishment of such a system may nevertheless constitute an indicator of the existence of such an agreement.

see para. 83

4. To hold that an agreement prohibited by Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) may be established simply on the basis of the expression of a unilateral policy aimed at preventing parallel imports would have the effect of confusing the scope of that provision with that of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC).

For an agreement within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty to be capable of being regarded as having been concluded by tacit acceptance, it is necessary that the manifestation of the wish of one of the contracting parties to achieve an anti-competitive goal constitute an invitation to the other party, whether express or implied, to fulfil that goal jointly, and that applies all the more where, as in this case, such an agreement is not at first sight in the interests of the other party, namely the wholesalers.

see paras 101-102

5. The mere concomitant existence of an agreement which is in itself neutral and a measure restricting competition that has been imposed unilaterally does not amount to an agreement prohibited by Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC). Thus, the mere fact that a measure adopted by a manufacturer, which has the object or effect of restricting competition, falls within the context of continuous business relations between the manufacturer and its wholesalers is not sufficient for a finding that such an agreement exists.

see para. 141