The Gazette 1972

The services to be provided are defined in Article 60 of the Treaty, and this includes "activities of all liberal professions". A modest draft directive to enable lawyers to practise within limits in the Community was turned down by the German and Luxemburg delegations on the ground that, under Article 55, these might encompass State activities which were specifically excluded. It was decided recently in Milan that either bi-literal or multi-lateral Conventions should be concluded be- tween member states as to the rights of their respective lawyers to practise within one another's country. Satis- factory agreements had already been reached between the Bars of Paris and Brussels, and the Bars of Paris and Rome. On 1st September 1971, a Benelux Conven- tion on pleading and practice was ratified by Belgium and Luxemburg. In principle, barristers and solicitors would have an equal status before the European Court and National Courts of member states, subject to the terms of the Convention. In England it was agreed that the same barristers only should appear on behalf of clients, if an English Judge sought a ruling from the European Court under Article 177 of the Treaty, if they had appeared before the English Court. It was essential to note that we were not exporting a divided legal pro- fession into Europe. In answer to questions, Mr. Crossick made the follow- ing points: (1) He was not aware of any Community legisla- tion which would hinder restrictions to be imposed upon aliens purchasing land in any of the member states. Mr. Temple Lang pointed out that the present provisions of the Land Act 1965 restricting the purchase of land by aliens are contrary to Article 7, which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of nationality as well as to the principles of freedom of establishment. If any controls were to be retained they would have to be non-discriminatory. (2) It would be possible for the larger firms of English Solicitors to establish branches in Ireland. The only effective way to prevent this would be for a sufficient number of Irish lawyers to become recognized experts in European Community Law. (3) In answer to the President, it was stated that we should have some knowledge of Community legisla- tion, and we must keep track of the legal develop- ments on other states. It would be most useful to create a centralised Law Institute to co-ordinate legal research. It was regrettable that official contact between the two legal professions was not more amicable. (4) He propounded the joke about Gallic Modesty, Prussian Charm, Italian efficiency and Irish succinct- ness in speech. (5) Despite the Hague Convention of 1964 on the Unification of Laws governing the International Sale of Goods, and the subsequent English Act passed, the "Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967", relatively little progress had so far been achieved in this field. (6) It would be useful to have tax havens, Luxem- burg was not a tax haven, but gave tax concessions to holding companies. (7) The problem of numerous trade unions in England was- a barrier to trade. The German system was preferable, whereby there was one trade union per industry, as against one trade union per trade. (8) In France, the two professions of "Avocat" and "Avoué" were about to be unified. The profitable pro- fession of "Notaire" was strictly controlled, while a "Conseiller Juridique" had no legal standing in France.

Mr. David Hall, a legal official of the Commission in Brussels, spoke on "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Legislation in the Common Market". This referred in particular to some aspects of compe- tition, as contemplated in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty; these Articles should be read in the context of the whole Treaty of Rome. Article 85 laid down that agreements incompatible with the Common Market, such as price-fixing and Market-sharing were conse- quently prohibited; this was an all embracing Article, which had to be considered in relation to the European Court decisions and the regulations and notices issued by the Commission. Regulation 17 lays down prov ! sions for granting exemption but does not affect Article 85. Many large industries have applied for exemption from the strict application of Article 85, but block exemptions have not been adopted. In the smaller cases, the norms for granting exemption have been laid down by the Commission. On the other hand in the more important matters, such as the Machine Tool Decision (March 1969); the International Textile Decision (October 1971); and the Société Technique Miniere v. Maschinenbau Ulm. the European Court laid down definite principles. The Konstam Grundig Case established that any separation of the national markets is invalid as conflict- ing with the competition rules. In certain circumstances the Commission would be prepared to limit the appli- cation of Article 85 (1). It would not be possible to apply Article 85 (2) rigidly. Any doubts however about the specific application of Article 85 should be referred to the Comission but an agreement remains valid until the Commission decides otherwise; it is therefore neces- sary to notify the Commission. If it is possible to sever valid provisions of an agreement from invalid ones, this will be done. The Omega Watchmakers Exclusive Dealers Case (November 1970) established the procedure. Here it was held that the retail distribution system of that company was valid as be : ng beneficial. The German Tyremakers Case (December 1970) was based on a principle that rebates would be given to bought articles; this was held to be an infringement of Art. 85. The Van Kalbeck Case (October 1970) related to an agreement between Belgian and Dutch companies in regard to cardboard tubings. Dentsche Gramofon Gesellschaft case was a conflict between Siemens and Phillips in regard to the rights to sell Polydor S.A. Records. In this case a Hamburg firm had sold the records at a lower price by purchasing them from a Swiss retailer; it established that the exercise of exclusive rights could contravene Article 85. Article 86 prohibits any action undertaken by one or rqore large enterprise to take improper advantage of its dominant position within the market, if it thereby affects trade between member States. These improper transactions include limitation of production, or the compulsory receipt of additional supplies by the pur- chaser if the vendor is to sign the contract. Fines were actually imposed in the Analyn Dyestuff Case. In reply to questions, it was stated : (1) In an application for an exemption, the Com- mission acts on information received from various sources. All interested parties may appear before the Court, but the Court does not normally reduce the amount of the fines. So far, there have been 9,500 applications for exemption under Article 85 (3). (2) Article 85 does not apply to mergers but Article 86 does.

20