86 / 262
European Communities (Names and Labelling of Tex-
tile Products) Regulations, 1973—S.I. No. 43/1973
These Regulations have been made to give effect to
the European Communities Council Directive No. 71/
307/EEC of 26 July 1971 (OJ No. L185/16-25 August
1971) (as adapted by the Treaty of Accession of Ireland
to the Communities) relating to the names and labelling
of textile products.
European Communities (National Catalogue of Agri-
cultural Plant Varieties) Regulations 1972—S.I.
339/1972.
The Order provides that the Minister for Agriculture
and Fisheries shall maintain a National Catalogue of
varieties of agricultural seeds which shall be eligible for
certification and sale under EEC conditions.
European Communities (Crystal Glass) Regulations
1972—S.I. No. 312/1972
These Regulations are made to give full effect to the
European Communities Council Directive (69/493/
EEC) of 15 December 1969 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass
(OJ No. L326/29 December 1969).
Marriages Act, 1972 (Commencement) Order, 1973—
S.I. No. 12/1973
This Order provides that Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11,
12, 16, 17, and 19 of the Marriages Act, 1972, shall
come into force on 1 February 1973. The Order also
provides that Sections 10, 13, 14 and 15 of the same Act
will come into force on 1 April 1973. Copies of this
Order may be obtained for l£p plus postage.
EEC loses decision in Court
The European Common Market's anti-monopoly cam-
paign suffered a major defeat yesterday when the Euro-
pean Court of Justice rejected the Common Market's
case against an American firm, Continental Can.
The Common Market's Commission had accused
Continental Can of "acquiring an abusively dominant
position" in the Common Market through its purchase
of several Dutch and German can manufacturing com-
panies. Europemballage, Continental Can's European
subsidiary, was accused of supplying more than four-
fifths of all cans sold in the northern nations of the
Market.
The Commission did not accuse Continental Can of
buying up companies to force up prices or to establish
an outright monopoly. But it said the firm's over-
whelming share of the market amounted to an abuse
in itself.
The Court's 65-page judgment indicated that it
rcjectcd the Commission's case on a technicality. It said
there were "uncertainties" in the Commission's charge
and complained that it had not clearly defined the
market area in which Continental Can's alleged com-
bination took place.
But it said a true "abuse" would take place only if a
firm so dominated a market that all other companies
producing the same items depended on it.
In its ruling, however, the Court admitted that the
legal basis of the Commission's position was justified.
The Court ruled in favour of Continental Can and its
European subsidiary, Europemballage, because of uncer-
tainties and contradictions in the Commission's position.
The five-judge Court ordered the Commission to pay
the costs of the case.
The case is of special importance because it is the first
time the Commission has used its powers to try to stop
a takeover.
As the earlier hearings had been dealt with by judges
from the six original E.E.G. member States only, the
judges from Britain, Ireland and Denmark did not take
part in the final deliberations which led to yesterday's
judgment. There was no immediate comment on the
Court's decision at the Brussels headquarters of Euro-
pemballage.
The Irish Times
(22 February 1973)
ABUSES OF POWER WORRY JUDGE
Mr. Justice Ackner spoke in the High Court yesterday
of the growing importance of protecting citizens from
abuse of power by officials "as governmental interference
increases". He asked why a suspected person's "right
of silence"—so jealously guarded by lawyers in the face
of recent suggestions that silence in a criminal case
could be indicative of guilt—did not apply in tax
evasion cases.
Giving judgment in a dispute about whether a bank
had a duty to supply information about customers to
the Inland Revenue, the Judge said that to provide
protection was "one of the vital functions of the
courts".
He ruled, however, that Mr. G. B. Clinch, managing
director of N. T. Butterfield & Son (Bermuda), must
comply with an Inland Revenue demand for informa-
tion about customers' affairs. These include dealings in
Bermuda, where profits tax, income tax, capital gains
tax, and estate duty do not exist.
Sir Elwyn Jones, SC, for Mr. Clinch, said the Inland
Revenue's demand was an "intolerable interference with
the liberty of the subject" and "a gross invasion of
privacy".
The Judge refused to grant Mr. Clinch a declaration
that he was not bound to comply with the demand. He
gave judgment with costs, for the Commissioners of
Inland Revenue who, he said, had "extensive powers of
making roving inquiries".
He commented : "The so-called 'right of silence' cur-
rently alleged with such emphasis and fervour by many
lawyers as going to the very root of British notions of
justice seems to find no place in the field of tax avoid-
ace, all the more so where tax evasion is concerned."
"If it is an essential part of our principles of juris-
prudence that silence should be sanctified, I pause only
to wonder why, when it comes to the detection of
deceptions practised upon the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue and Customs and Excise, those principles have
no application."
He held, however, that the Inland Revenue had
power under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act,
1970, to demand the information.
The Guardian
(14 February 1972)
85