Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Foreign Affairs Committee.
Date:
1992
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    86/96 (page 70)
    under Article 85(1). In the case of abuses of a dominant position covered by Article 86, the national courts must apply the rules laid down under national law for infringements of a statutory prohibition. Full and effective legal protection also means that national courts must if necessary, issue interim injunc- tions and, where appropriate, award damages for economic loss suferred as a result of infringements of the Community competition rules in all cases where such remedies are available in similar proceedings under national law. 7. The simultaneous application of national substantive law is in principle compatible with the exis- tence of Community law as a separate legal system. However, the application of national provisions must be without prejudice to the unrestricted and uniform application of Articles 85 and 86 and the effective- ness of the measures taken to enforce them. Conflicts between Community and national competition law must therefore be resolved in accordance with the principle of the precedence of Community law.! 8. It follows from this principle that national courts may not apply national provisions and recognise as valid legal acts, agreements and decisions which are prohibited under Article 85(1) and are thus auto- matically void under Article 85(2). The same applies to legal acts which are defined as abuses in Article 86 and are therefore prohibited. Conversely, cartels which have, pursuant to Article 85(3), been exempted from the ban laid down in Article 85(1) may not normally be declared to be prohibited or null and void on the basis of national law, given the principle of the precedence of Community law, the aim of which is to ensure that national measures do not undermine the full effectiveness of the Treaty. This would hap- pen where such a prohibition under national law would have the effect of prejudicing the essential basis of the exemption granted. II. ADVANTAGES OF PROCEEDINGS IN NATIONAL COURTS 9. The application of Community competition law by the national courts has considerable advantages for individuals and companies: — the Commission cannot award compensation for loss suffered as a result of an infringement of Article 85 or Article 86. Such claims may be brought only before the national courts. Companies are more likely to avoid infringements of the Community competition rules if they risk having to pay damages in such an event; — national courts can usually adopt interim measures and order the ending of infringements more quickly than the Commission is able to do; — in a national court, it is possible to combine a claim under Community law with a claim under national law. This is not possible in a procedure before the Commission; — in some member-States, the courts have the power to award legal costs to the successful appli- cant. This is never possible in the administrative procedure before the Commission; — the national courts are designed, and also in a very much better position than the Commission, to decide on private cases brought on the basis of Articles 85 and 86. 10. The Commission believes that greater involvement of national courts will help to ensure more bal- anced application of Community competition rules throughout the Community. It is a crucial step towards a practical division of labour between the Commission and the national courts, in line with their respective functions. The Commission’s primary duty, as a political institution, is to safeguard the gen- eral interest of the Community. It must therefore, through the rational and rigorous use of its limited administrative resources, concentrate on cases which need to be dealt with as a matter of priority in the light of the Treaty objectives or other important Community interests. The national courts, by contrast, are called upon primarily to protect the legitimate private interests of all those seeking redress. 11. Accordingly, the Commission intends, in implementing its decision-making powers, to concentrate on notifications, complaints and own-initiative proceedings which have particular political, economic or legal significance for the Community. By contrast, cases not involving specific features that are of general significance should, it believes, be dealt with differently: while notifications are normally dealt with by means of comfort letters, complaints should be handled by the national courts or authorities. 12. However, in determining its priorities, the Commission also intends to examine whether individuals and companies have effective scope for enforcing their rights in proceedings before national courts and to take appropriate account of diffigulties or obstacles which national courts may encounter where the need arises for extensive, cross-frontier investigations or for sectoral or overall economic assessments. ' Case 14/68, WALTWILHELM AND OTHERS V. BUNDESKARTELLAMT; [1969] ECR 1 at 13 [1969] CMLR 100 at 118; Joined Cases py il & 1—3/79, PROCUREUR DE LA REPUBLIQUE V. GIRY AND GUERLAIN; [1980] ECR 2327 at 2375, [1981] 2 CMLR 99 at 136.