212 / 406
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGUST 1985
Commission was correct in identifying that the provision
of new capital to companies through Government
agencies can constitute a State aid within Article 92 that
the Commission had failed to justify its decision and to
indicate sufficiently the nature of the adverse effect on
competition which it envisaged.
Irish Governments do not tend to reveal the extent to
which it is necessary to obtain "clearance" from the
Commission before proceeding with plans either to aid a
particular company or to take certain measures in
relation to a particular region. Another extract from the
Fourteenth Report on Competition Policy refers to the
following permission granted to Ireland:
"In October 1983, the Commission approved the
Irish Government's plans for the designation for a
period of three years of certain industrial sites in the
Greater Cork Area. The Area, in common with
other non-designated areas, was previously eligible
for grants to a maximum amount of 45% of
investment costs which now becomes 50% and 60%
in the case of small firms."
16
Conclusion
In this series of articles I have sought to indicate briefly
the extent to which European Community law has
penetrated into the Irish legal system. The relationship is
a complex one but not one which the legal practitioner
can afford to ignore. Cases giving rise to issues of
Community law may not be an every day occurrence in a
solicitor's office, but the scope is very broad indeed and it
may well be that in some cases the European element has
simply remained undetected. I would endorse fully the
view of John Temple Lang that
"To deal with Community law requires a certain
investment of time and money. It is important that a
sufficient number of Irish lawyers should choose to
make that investment. Community law is
emphatically not to be regarded as if it were merely
a new topic of Irish law which can be mastered
ad
hoc
when the need arises."
17
•
, .
(Concluded)
Footnotes
1. Murphv "The Second Generation of Competition L egislation in the
E EC ". J BAR — Journal of Irish Business and Administrative
Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, Oct. 1984 p. 10.
2. Commission Decision 17 Dec. 1975. OJ No. L95, 9 March 1976, p. 1
[1976] 1 CMER D.28.
3. An Appeal was taken to the Court,
United Brands
-v-
Commission.
Case 27/76, [1978] ECR 207, which annulled part of the
Commission's Decision and reduced the line accordingly.
4. Press Release dated 31 January 1977, [1977] I CMER D. 121.
5. The complaint was received by the Commission on 5 July 1979.
6.
Camera Care
l.td.-v- Commission
Case 792/79 R. [1980] ECR 119.
7.
Hasselblad (UB) Ltd. -v- Commission.
Case 86/82, OJ C94, s.4 1984,
p.4.
8. Case 127/73 [1974] ECR 51.
9. Thirteenth Report on Competition Policy, p.136.
10. [1984] 1 AC 130 — See discussion of this case in Banks "National
Enforcement of Community Rights — A Boost for Damocles".
CML Rev. 1984, 669-674.
I 1. See Note on this case by McMahon, 1977 European Law Rev. Vol. 2.
p. 153.
12. Judgment of 17 July 1981. [1982] ILRM 77.
13. High Court, McWilliam J., 19 Feb. 1980, (1980) JISEL p.82.
14. Fourteenth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 152-3.
15. Case 323/82. Judgment of 14.11.1984. OJ C326. 7.12.1984, p.4.
16. Fourteenth Report on Competition Policy, p. 177.
17. Temple Lang "European Community Law, Irish Law and the Irish
Legal Profession — Protection of the Individual and Co-operation
between Member States and the Community.
(1983) 5 DU LJ (N.S.) at p.25.
Can learn
a high rate
of interest
(Mi my
investment
with standard
rate income
tax paid?
withthe.
I,
• • • Educational Building Society
200