A charge imposed on domestic and imported products in the same way constitutes an internal taxation measure and not a tax having an effect equivalent to a customs duty where its use only partly offsets the burden borne by the domestic product.

National courts, having jurisdiction to review the  failure by a Member State to comply with Article 108(3) TFEU, cannot rule on the compatibility of State aid with Article 107 TFEU, which may be the main issue in actions before them or may arise as a subsidiary issue.

CJEC, March 11, 1992, No C-78/90

La clause d'un contrat de distribution d'un journal gratuit financée exclusivement par les recettes publicitaires qui interdit aux commerçants signataires de vendre la publication, ne présente pas un caractère anticoncurrentiel dès lors qu'elle est destinée à garantir le respect de la gratuité de la publication voulue par l'éditeur comme la condition déterminante du contrat.

CA Paris, 11 mars 1992, n° ECOC9210155X

Une taxe frappant de manière identique les produits nationaux et les produits importés constitue une mesure d'imposition intérieure et non une taxe d'effet équivalent à un droit de douane si son affectation ne compense que partiellement la charge supportée par le produit national.

Le juge national, compétent en cas d'inobservation par l'Etat membre concerné de l'article 108, paragraphe 3, TFUE, ne peut se prononcer à titre principal ou incident sur la compatibilité d'une aide avec l'article 107 TFUE.

CJCE, 11 mars 1992, n° C-78/90

Une opération de concentration qui conduit au contrôle d'une part de marché de plus de 75 %, est de nature à porter atteinte à la concurrence.

Une opération de concentration qui conduit au contrôle d'une part de marché de plus de 75% et à la détention de deux marques renommées en présence d'importantes barrières à l'entrée est de nature à porter atteinte à la concurrence.

Ministre de l’Économie, 11 mars 1992, n° ECOC9210051A

L'importateur, qui commercialise des tissus sur lesquels figurent la copie servile du dessin d'un concurrent, a un comportement parasitaire.

CA Paris, 4e ch. A, 11 mars 1992, n° 91-004316

Cass. crim., 11 mars 1992, n° 91-84.175

Cass. 3e civ., 11 mars 1992, n° 88-18.583

Cass. 3e civ., 11 mars 1992, n° 90-15.633

Cass. 2e civ., 11 mars 1992, n° 90-19.699

Cass. 3e civ., 11 mars 1992, n° 90-18.150

CA Paris, 1re ch. sect. cbv, 10 mars 1992, n° 91/24720

Cass. com., 10 mars 1992, n° 90-14.456

Le préavis de six mois accordé à une agence de publicité n'est pas vide de toute substance du seul fait qu'il court en partie sur des périodes d'inactivité, en raison de la nature saisonnière de la publicité pour des produits destinés à l'agriculture.

Cass. com., 10 mars 1992, n° 90-14.621

En vertu de l'article 35 du règlement 1215-2012 (ancien article 31 du règlement 44-2001), le juge français des référés peut ordonner une expertise permettant la conservation ou l'établissement des preuves, sans avoir à caractériser l'urgence.

Cass. com., 10 mars 1992, n° 90-10.403

A clause conferring jurisdiction contained in a company's statutes satisfies the requirement that disputes arise or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, within the meaning of Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (former Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001), if it refers to the disputes between the company and its shareholders as such.

Irrespective of how shares are acquired, the formal requirements laid down in Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (former Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001) are complied with if the clause conferring jurisdiction is contained in the statutes of the company - in writing in the legal systems of all the Member States - and if those statutes are lodged in a place to which the shareholder may have access or are contained in a public register.

A clause conferring jurisdiction in the statutes of a company is enforceable as against all the shareholders even if the shareholder against whom the clause in dispute is invoked is opposed to its adoption or became a shareholder after the clause was adopted, insofar as by becoming and by remaining a shareholder, he agrees to be subject to the provisions appearing in the statutes of the company and to the decisions adopted by the organs of the company, even if he does not agree with some of those provisions or decisions.

The scope of a jurisdiction clause must be limited solely to the disputes which arise from the legal relationship in connection with which the agreement was entered into.

It is for the national court to interpret the clause conferring jurisdiction invoked before it in order to determine which disputes fall within its scope.

A jurisdiction clause in derogation from the general rules on jurisdiction confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court of the Member State designated by the parties [Note: Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 now provides that this jurisdiction is exclusive unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties].

Where a company's statutes include a clause conferring jurisdiction, every shareholder is deemed to be aware of that clause and to have effectively consented to the assignment of jurisdiction for which it provides insofar as the statutes are lodged in a place to which the shareholder may have access, or are contained in a public register.

CJEC, March 10, 1992, No C-214/89

The deduction of anti-dumping duties in calculating the export price in favor of independent importers alone is not discriminatory insofar as importers who are associated with the exporter participate in the practices which constitute dumping and are in a position to have full knowledge of the circumstances underlying it.

The anti-dumping duties must be deducted in constructing the export price for the purposes of refunding duties to a related importer.

CJEC, 5th chamber, March 10, 1992, No C-188/88

Normal value must be determined on the basis not of the prices charged by the producer but of the prices invoiced by related sales companies, insofar as the division of production and sales activities between these legally distinct companies does not preclude from identifying a single economic entity, including where the producer carries out itself a number of sales functions.

CJEC, 5th chamber, March 10, 1992, No C-175/87

The export price constructed on the basis of the price paid by the first independent purchaser must be adjusted to reflect the costs and profits inherent in the activity carried out by the exporter's subsidiary established in the EU through which the export sales are made.

CJEC, 5th chamber, March 10, 1992, No C-172/87

Where a producer has financial control of the distribution company for its products in the country concerned, and entrusts to it tasks which are normally the responsibility of an internal sales department of the manufacturing organization, normal value is established on the basis of the sales price of that distributor with whom it forms a single economic entity.

Despite the segmentation of the market, in all segments merged together plain paper photocopiers constitute the same product where there is competition between the products in adjoining segments which may be classified in various segments.

CJEC, 5th chamber, March 10, 1992, No C-171/87

Le prix à l'exportation construit sur la base du prix payé par le premier acheteur indépendant doit être ajusté en fonction des frais et bénéfices inhérents à l'activité déployée par la filiale de l'exportateur établie dans l'UE, par l'intermédiaire de laquelle sont réalisées les ventes à l'exportation.

CJCE, 5e ch., 10 mars 1992, n° C-172/87

Lorsque le producteur contrôle économiquement la société de distribution de ses produits dans le pays concerné, et lui confie des tâches qui relèvent normalement d'un département de vente interne à son organisation, la valeur normale est établie à partir du prix de vente de ce distributeur avec lequel il forme une entité économique unique.

En dépit d'une segmentation du marché, les photocopieurs à papier ordinaire, tous segments confondus, constituent un même produit dès lors que les produits des segments adjacents peuvent être classés dans plusieurs segments et sont en concurrence.

CJCE, 5e ch., 10 mars 1992, n° C-171/87

Lorsque les statuts d'une société comportent une clause de prorogation de compétence, tout actionnaire est censé avoir connaissance de cette clause et consentir effectivement à l'attribution de juridiction qu'elle prévoit, dès lors que les statuts sont déposés en un lieu auquel l'actionnaire peut avoir accès, ou figurent dans un registre public.

Une clause attributive de juridiction confère, par dérogation aux règles générales sur la compétence judiciaire, une compétence à caractère exclusif à la juridiction de l'État membre désignée par les parties [NDLR : l'article 25 du règlement 1215-2012 prévoit désormais que cette compétence est exclusive, sauf convention contraire des parties].

L'interprétation de la clause attributive de juridiction invoquée devant le juge national, afin de déterminer les différends relevant de son champ d'application, incombe à ce dernier.

La portée d'une clause attributive de juridiction doit être limitée aux seuls différends qui trouvent leur origine dans le rapport de droit à l'occasion duquel cette convention a été conclue.

La clause attributive de juridiction figurant dans les statuts d'une société est opposable à l'ensemble des actionnaires, y compris à celui qui s'est opposé à son adoption ou est devenu actionnaire après son adoption, dès lors que l'actionnaire, en acquérant et en conservant cette qualité, donne son consentement pour se soumettre aux dispositions des statuts de la société, ainsi qu'aux décisions adoptées par ses organes, même si certaines de ces dispositions ou décisions ne rencontrent pas son accord.

Indépendamment du mode d'acquisition des actions, les exigences de forme prescrites par l'article 25 du règlement 1215-2012 (ancien article 23 du règlement 44-2001) sont remplies si la clause attributive de juridiction est incluse dans les statuts de la société - lesquels revêtent toujours une forme écrite dans les ordres juridiques des États membres -, et si ces statuts ont été déposés en un lieu auquel l'actionnaire peut avoir accès, ou figurent dans un registre public.

La clause attributive de juridiction, insérée dans les statuts d'une société, qui se réfère aux litiges opposant la société à ses actionnaires en tant que tels, satisfait à la condition du caractère suffisamment déterminé du rapport de droit à l'origine du différend né ou à naître, visé à l'article 25 du règlement Bruxelles (I) bis (ancien article 23 du règlement 44-2001).

CJCE, 10 mars 1992, n° C-214/89

La déduction des droits antidumping lors du calcul du prix à l'exportation en faveur des seuls importateurs indépendants n'est pas discriminatoire dès lors que les importateurs liés à l'exportateur participent aux pratiques de dumping et sont en mesure de connaître tous les éléments sur lesquels le dumping est fondé.

Les droits antidumping doivent être déduits lors de la construction du prix à l'exportation aux fins du remboursement de droits à un importateur lié.

CJCE, 5e ch., 10 mars 1992, n° C-188/88

La valeur normale doit être déterminée non pas sur la base des prix facturés par le producteur, mais des prix facturés par les sociétés de vente qui lui sont apparentées, dès lors que le partage des activités de production et de vente entre ces sociétés juridiquement distinctes n'empêche pas d'identifier une entité économique unique, y compris lorsque le producteur exerce lui-même certaines fonctions de vente.

CJCE, 5e ch., 10 mars 1992, n° C-175/87

A single infringement classified both as an agreement and a concerted practice does not require the simultaneous and cumulative existence of all the elements constituting each of those infringements.

An agreement that is no longer in force is contrary to Article 101 TFEU when it still produces effects beyond its formal cessation.

Meetings between rival producers seeking to fix sales price and volume targets, during which information was exchanged, particularly on charged and intended prices, profitability thresholds, sales figures and the identity of their customers, constitute illegal concerted practices in so far as they influence the conduct of each producer on the market and divulge the course of action that they contemplate taking.

Meetings between rival producers seeking to fix sales price targets during which information was exchanged, particularly on charged and intended prices, constitute illegal concerted practices in so far as they influence the conduct of each producer on the market and divulge the course of action that they contemplate taking.

Information about monthly turnover exchanged during meetings between competing producers, the object of which is the setting of sales volume targets, influences the conduct of each producer on the market and divulges the course of action they envisage taking.

CFI, 1st chamber, March 10, 1992, No T-15/89

The finding of a single infringement that is classified both as an agreement and a concerted practice does not require the simultaneous and cumulative existence of all the factors constituting each of the infringements.

The fact that the Commission had imposed, in the past, fines at a certain level for certain types of infringement does not prevent it from raising that level if it is necessary to ensure the implementation of the EU competition policy.

An agreement which is no longer in force is contrary to Article 101 TFEU when it continues to produce effects after it has formally ceased to be implemented.

Participation in meetings during which each participant knew that its competitor would reveal its future price intentions constitutes a concerted practice as each participant could not fail to take account of that information when determining its own market policy.

Meetings between rival producers whose purpose is to set target prices and sales volumes, and during which information was exchanged regarding intended or charged prices, profitability thresholds, sales figures and the identity of customers, amount to illegal concerted practices in so far as they influence the conduct of each producer on the market and reveal the way they intend to behave.

Exchanges of information, during meetings between rival producers, regarding intended or charged prices, profitability thresholds, sales figures and the identity of customers, amount to anticompetitive concerted practices by their object, in so far as they eliminate any doubt about the future conduct of each producer on the market.

Exchanges of information relating to intended or charged prices, during meetings between rival producers,  amount to concerted practices that are anticompetitive by their object, in so far as they eliminate any uncertainty as to the future conduct of each producer on the market.

Information on monthly sales figures exchanged during meetings between rival producers whose purpose is to set sales volumes, influences the conduct of each producer on the market and reveal the way they intend to behave.

Exchanges of information relating to profitability thresholds, during meetings between rival producers whose purpose is to set target prices and sales volumes are unlawful in so far as they influence the conduct of each producer on the market and reveal the way they intend to behave.

Exchanges of information on the identity of customers during meetings between competitors, whose purpose is the allocation of big customers, amount to illegal concerted practices in so far as they influence the conduct of each producer on the market and reveal the way they intend to behave.

CFI, 1st chamber, March 10, 1992, No T-12/89

Different agreements and concerted practices between rival producers that have the same economic purpose in setting price and quota targets amount to a single infringement.

The Commission may only adopt, as admissible evidence against an undertaking, documents mentioned in the Statement of Objections or those that, without being mentioned in it, have been appended to it when the undertaking would reasonably have been able to predict the conclusions that the Commission would draw from them.

A group of undertakings, when it consists of a unitary organization of personnel, tangible or intangible elements, which pursues a specific economic aim on a long-term basis, is the undertaking to which the infringement should be attributed.

Meetings between rival producers whose purpose is to set price targets and sales volumes, and during which information is exchanged on envisaged or already-charged prices, profitability thresholds, sales volume restrictions and the identity of customers, amount to concerted practices that are anticompetitive by their object.

Meetings between rival producers whose purpose is to set price targets, and during which information is exchanged on desired or already-charged prices, amount to concerted practices that are anticompetitive by their object.

Information exchanges relating to restrictions of sales volumes, taking place during meetings having as their object the setting of sales volumes, amount to concerted practices that are anticompetitive by their object.

Meetings between rival producers during which information is exchanged on desired or already-charged prices, amount to concerted practices that are anticompetitive by their object.

CFI, 1st chamber, March 10, 1992, No T-11/89

Establishing a single infringement classified both as an agreement and a concerted practice does not require proof of all the specific elements constituting each of those infringements.

Article 101 TFEU is applicable to an agreement that is no longer in force when it still produces effects after it has formally ceased to exist.

Meetings between rival producers seeking to fix sales prices and volume targets are anticompetitive insofar as they influence the conduct of each producer on the market and divulge the course of action that each producer intends to take.

CFI, 1st chamber, March 10, 1992, No T-10/89

It is not necessary to demonstrate that each undertaking's individual participation in the collusion affects trade between Member States.

The establishing of a complex infringement, classified as an agreement and a concerted practice does not require the simultaneous and cumulative proof of all the evidence constitutive of each infringement.

Meetings held between competing producers, the purpose of which was to set price and sales volumes targets, constitute concerted practices having an anticompetitive object, insofar as the exchange of information allows each one to know the other's future conduct.

CFI, 1st chamber, March 10, 1992, No T-9/89

It is not necessary to demonstrate that an undertaking's individual participation in an agreement affects trade between Member States in order to apply Article 101 TFEU.

Different agreements and concerted practices with the same economic purpose constitute a single complex infringement, where the constituent elements involved either classify as an agreement or as a concerted practice.

Different agreements and concerted practices with the same economic purpose constitute a unique complex infringement, the constituent elements of which either classify as an agreement or as a concerted practice.

The undertaking's cooperation in the investigation, which enabled the Commission to understand the significance of the seized documents and draw the necessary inferences so as to establish and bring to an end the infringement, justifies more than a 10% reduction of the fine.

Article 101 TFEU is applicable to agreements which are no longer in force but which continue to produce effects.

Article 101 TFEU is applicable to agreements which are no longer in force but which continue to produce effects after they have formally ceased.

Meetings between competing manufacturers, which enable target prices and sales volumes to be fixed, and during which information relating, in particular, to determined or envisaged prices, profitability thresholds and client identity is exchanged, have an anticompetitive object.

Meetings between competing manufacturers, which enable target prices to be fixed, and during which information relating, in particular, to applied or envisaged prices, have an anticompetitive object.

Exchanges of information, relating in particular to monthly sales figures, which take place in the course of meetings having the purpose of setting sales volume targets are restrictive of competition.

Meetings between competing manufacturers, which enable target prices to be fixed, and during which information relating, in particular, to determined or envisaged prices, have an anticompetitive object.

Court decisions rendered in 1992 - Page 34