The Gazette 1985

G/ZETTE

OCTOBER 1985

injunction); in Ireland, Cadbury Ireland -v- Kerry Co-operative Creameries [1981] Dublin Univ. L.J. 94 (High Court —damages); in Germany, BMW [\9M] Wirtschaftsrecht 392, [1980] European Commercial Cases 213 (Federal Supreme Court — damages); in Belgium, N. V. Union de Remorquage et de Sauvetage-v- N. V. Schelde Sieepvaartbedrijf [1965] CMLR 251 (Commercial Court, Antwerp — damages) and GB - IN NO - BM -v- Elsevier Sequoia [1980] 3 CMLR 258 (Commercial Court, Brussels — injunction); in the Netherlands, Van Gelderen Import -v- Impressum Nederiand [1981] Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 405 (Regional Court, Amsterdam 2 injunction). See generally J. Temple Lang, EEC Competition Actions in Member States' Courts - Claims for Damages. Declarations and Injunctions for Breach'of Community Antitrust Law, (1983-84) 7 Fordham Intl. L.J. 389-466; Jacobs, Civil Enforcement of EEC Antitrust Law. (1984)82 Michigan Law Review 1364(Festschrift for Eric Stein). 45. Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 4/85, p.21. 46. On the rule of reason debate, see Foorester and Norall, The Laicization of community Law Is and Could be Applied. (1983) Fordham Incorporate Law Institute 305, (1984) 21 Common Market Law Review II: Joliet, The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law: American. German and Common Market Laws in Comparative Perspective. 1967; Korah, The Rise and Fail of Provisional Validity - The Need for a Rule of Reason in EEC Antitrust, (1981) 3 North- western Journal of International Law and Business 320; Schechter, The Rule of Reason in European Competition Law, (1982/2) Legal Issues of European Integration 51; Steindorff Article 85 and the Rule of Reason. (1984) 21 Common Market Review 639; Van Houtte, A Standard of Reason in EEC Antitrust Law: Some Comments on the Application of Parts I and 3 of Article 85. (1982) 4 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 497. 47. e.g. see respectively Commission decisions in Nutricia (19 December 1983), OJ L 376/22,31 December 1983 and IBM PC ( 18 April 1984), OJ L 118/24, 6 May 1984. 48. On procedures, see Kerse, EEC Antitrust Procedure, London, 1981 + Supplements. •

EEC. London, 1984; Daoút, Distribution under EEC Law - An Official View, (1983) Fordham Corporate Law'Institute 441. On selective distribution, see Ferry, Selective Distribution and other Post Sales Restrictions, (1981) 2 European Competition Law Review 209. 21. O.J. Special Edition 1967, p. 10, O.J. No. 57. 25 March 1967, p.849/67. 22. O.J. L 173/1. 30 June 1983. 23. O.J. L 173/5. 30 June 1983. 24. Decision of 21 December 1983, O.J. L 376/41, 31 December 1983. 25. Decision of 18 April 1984, O.J. L 118/24, 4 May 1984. 26. Decision of 10 December 1984, O.J. L 19/17, 23 January 1985. 27. Decision of 10 December 1984, O.J. L 20/38, 24 January 1985. 28. See Geebel, The Uneasy Fare of Franchising under EEC Antitrust Laws. (1985) 10 European Law Review 87. 29. See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 172/80 .Zuechner [1981] ECR 2021 and the Commission's decisions of (i) 30 March 1984, Nuovo Cegam. O.J. L 99/29, 11 April 1984; (ii) 5 December 1984, Fire Insurance. O.J. L 35/20, 7 February 1985 and (iii) of 10 December 1984, Eurocheques. O.J. L 35/43, 7 February 1985. 30. Eurocheques decision, supra, n.29. 31. Case 229/83, [1985] 2 CMLR 286. See also Case 231/83, [1985] 2 CMLR 524. 32. Civil Aviation, Memorandum No. 2, document COM(84) 72 final. 33. Commission decision of 10 December 1982, British Telecommuni- cations. OJ L 360/6, 1982; Court of Justice judgment of 20 March 1985 in Case 41/83, Italy -v- Commission, not yet reported. 34. Commission Press Release IP(85) 10. 10 January 1985, Bull. EC 1- 1985, point 2.1.10. 34a Bull. EC 3-1985, point 2.1.43. 35. See Johannes, Industrial Property and Copyright in European Community Law, Leiden, 1976; Technology Transfer under EEC law- Europe between the Divergent Opinions of the Past and the New Administration: A Comparative Law Approach (1982) Fordham Corporate Law Institute 65; Siragusa, Technology Transfers under EEC Law - A Private View, id., 95; Joliet, Territorial and Exclusive Trade Mark Licensing under EEC Law of Competition. (1984) 15 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 21. Understanding of Community Law's approach to industrial property requires familiarity with the EEC Treaty's provisions on the free movement of goods: see Oliver, Free Movement of Goods in the EEC, London, 1982 + Supplement; Gormley, Prohibiting Restrictions on Trade within the EEC, Amsterdam, 1985. 36. Regulation 234/84, supra, n.7. 37. See Reynolds, Merger Control in the EEC. (1983) 17 Journal of World Trade Law 407. 38. See Regulating the Behaviour of Monopolies and Dominant Undertakings in Community Law, ed. Van Damme, Bruges, 1977; Fox, Abuse of a dominant Position under the Treaty of Rome - A Comparison with U.S. Law. (1983) Fordham Corporate Law Institute 367; Korah, Concept of a Dominant Position within the Meaning of Article 86. (1980) 17 Common Market Law Review 395; Interpretation and Application of Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome: Abuse of a Dominant Position within the Common Market (1978) 53 Notre Dame Lawyer 768; Joliet, Monopolisation and Abuse of Dominant Position. 1970; Siragusa, The Application of Article 86 to the Pricing Policy of Dominant Companies: discriminatory and Unfair Prices. (1979) 16 Common Market Law Review 179; Temple Lang, Abuse of Dominant Positions in European Community Law. Present and Future: Some Aspects. (1978) Fordham Corporate Law Institute 25; Regulating Multinational Corporate Concentration 2 The European Economic Community. (1981) 2 Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies in Corporate Concentration 144. 39. 14th Report on Competition Policy, points 94-95, Bull. EC-1984, pp. 96-103. 40. See Arts. 89 and 155 EEC. 41. Case 127/73, BRT-v- SABAM [1974] ECR 51. 42. This was done for the first time recently in the English Court of Appeal: Hasselb/ad (GB) Ltd. -v- Orbinson [1984] 3 Common Market Law Reports 679, [ 1985] 1 All England Law Reports 173. Sir John Donaldson M.R. observed that "this is apparently the first occasion on which the Commission has felt impelled to seek rights of audience in national proceedings and I am most grateful to them for an intervention which I have found helpful" (CMLR at 690, All ER at 182). 43. Article 9(1) of Council Regulation No. 17/62. 44. See, e.g., in England, Garden Cottage Foods Ltd. -v- Milk Marketing Board [1984] 1 AC 130; [1983] 3 CMLR 43 (House of Lords — damages) and James Budgett & sons Ltd., -v- British Sugar Corp.. noted [1979] 4 European Law Review 417 (High Court —

Walter Conan Ltd., Academic-Legal-Civil-Clerical Rob ema k e r s. Telephone - 971730 - 97188 7

PHELAN - CONAN GROUP

WOODLLIGH HOUSE. HOLLYBANK AVENUE. RANELAGH D 6

Official Robemakers To:-

The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland also N.U.I. N . C . E . A. N.I.H E. Q.U.B. We cater for all English universities and the Inter-Collegiate code of North America and Canada.

276