Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:26:27.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v. Commission of the European Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Adelheid Puttler
Adelheid Puttler*
Affiliation:
Bavarian Ministry of Economics, Federal Republic of Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Canadian, Finnish and United States producers of wood pulp and two trade associations of such producers, one Finnish and one American, applied to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for annulment of a 1984 decision of the Commission of the European Communities. Under the 1984 decision, the Commission found the applicants to have infringed Article 85 of the EEC Treaty by engaging in concerted actions relating to the prices of wood pulp exports into the European Community (EC). The applicants, whose registered offices were all outside the Community, were ordered to terminate the pricing practices and to refrain in the future from measures having the same object or effect. The Commission fined all but two of the applicants for their past conduct. In this preliminary judgment, the Court held: (1) that the territorial scope of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty applies to the pricing practices of the applicants; (2) that by applying Article 85 to such practices, the EC had not infringed the public international law principles of territoriality and noninterference; (3) that the Commission’s decision is vacated insofar as it concerns the pricing actions of KEA, an association of U.S. wood pulp producers registered as an export cartel under the Webb-Pomerene Act; and (4) that the competition rules in the Free Trade Agreement between Finland and the Community do not preclude the application of the EEC Treaty.

Keywords

EEC competition lawapplicability to concerted practices of non-EC companies and trade associations affecting prices within the Communityterritoriality and noninterferenceconsultation under EEC/Finnish Free Trade Agreement
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 357 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Commission Decision of Dec. 19, 1984, 85/202/EEC (Wood Pulp), 27 O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 85) 1 (1984), [1982–1985 New Developments Binder] Common Mkt. Rep. (CCH) ¶10,654 (1985) [hereinafter CCH].

2 Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11 [hereinafter EEC Treaty].

3 The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Export Association of the United States, formerly named Kraft Export Association of the United States (KEA).

4 15 U.S.C. §§61–66(1982).

5 Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Finland, Oct. 5, 1973, 16 O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 328) 2 (1973).

6 Joined Cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125–129/85, slip op. at 13–14, para. 13, CCH ¶F14.491, at 18,612.

7 Slip op. at 14, para. 16, CCH at 18,612.

8 Slip op. at 15, para. 16, CCH at 18,612.

9 Slip op. at 15, para. 18, CCH at 18,612.

10 Report for the Hearing in Joined Cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85, at 30–32, 39 [hereinafter Report], CCH at 18,605.

11 Opinion of Mr. Advocate General Darmon in Joined Cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85, at 26 et seq. [hereinafter Darmon Opinion], CCH at 18,614, 18,623.

12 Slip op. at 16, para. 20, CCH at 18,612.

13 Id., CCH at 18,612.

14 OECD Council Recommendation concerning Co-operation between Member Countries on Restrictive Business Practices affecting International Trade, Oct. 25, 1979, 19 Acts of the Organization 377.

15 Slip op. at 16, para. 22, CCH at 18,612.

16 See supra note 5.

17 Slip op. at 19, para. 32, CCH at 18,613.

18 Case 48/69, Imperial Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Commission, 1972 ECR 619, 661–63; Case 52/69, J. R. Geigy AG v. Commission, 1972 ECR 787, 834–37; Case 53/69, Sandoz AG v. Commission, 1972 ECR 845.

19 Opinion of Mr. Advocate General Mayras in Cases 48, 49 and 50–57/69, May 2, 1972, 1972 ECR 665, 692–97.

20 On the merits of the effects doctrine, see Darmon Opinion, supra note 11, at 26, CCH at 18,614.

21 For a discussion of the rule of noninterference in antitrust law, see Meessen, Antitrust Jurisdiction Under Customary International Law, 78 AJIL 783, 803–10 (1984).

22 Report, supra note 10, at 32, CCH at 18,605–07.

23 Cf. the requirement of reasonable exercise of jurisdiction in §403(1) and (2) and the balancing rule in §403(3) of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987). For an analysis, see Meessen, Conflicts of Jurisdiction Under the New Restatement, Law & Contemp. Probs., Summer 1987, at 47.

24 Report, supra note 10, at 40, CCH at 18,607–08.

25 Darmon Opinion, supra note 11, at 33, CCH at 18,624.