288 / 406
G/ZETTE
OCTOBER 1985
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 —
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.
•
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