About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Eur. L. Rep. 1 (1997)

handle is hein.journals/eurlawreo1 and id is 1 raw text is: [1997] EuLR A IBERIAN UK LTD v BPB INDUSTRIES PLC AND BRITISH GYPSUM LTD High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Laddie J 18 April 1996 B Competition-Abuse of dominant position- Complaint to European Commission- Decision of Commission reviewed by Court of First Instance and European Court- Whether European decisions admissible and conclusive in national court Facts C The plaintiff company imported plasterboard into the UK which was offered to customers at a lower price than the defendants' product. The defendants were in a dominant position in that market. The plaintiff made a complaint to the Commission that the defendants had abused their dominant position in breach of Art. 86 of the EC Treaty. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had harmed its trade by offering loyalty rebates to builders' merchants who agreed to purchase only the defendants' product and by offering delivery priority for customers who were not trading with the D plaintiff. The Commission found breaches of Art. 86 and imposed severe fines (Decision 89/22/EEC). The Court of First Instance substantially rejected the defendants' application for annulment (Case T-65/89). The European Court of Justice dismissed the defendants' appeal (Case C-310/93P). The plaintiff participated in proceedings before the Commission and intervened in the cases before both the Community courts. E The plaintiff issued proceedings in the High Court against the defendants claiming damages for breaches of Art. 86. An order was made for a preliminary hearing of whether the findings of fact and the conclusions as to the applicability of Art. 86 made by the Commission, the Court of First Instance and the European Court were admissible and/or conclusive of such issues in the national court. The plaintiff contended that by virtue of the principles of res judicata, and/or issue estoppel, it was not open to either party to relitigate the issues which had been determined by the F Commission. The plaintiff further contended that it would be an abuse of process and contrary to European Community law for the defendants to deny the correctness and applicability of the conclusions of the European proceedings. The defendant contended that issue estoppel did not apply because the plaintiff and defendants had not been parties to a lis and because the Commission was not a civil court but an administrative authority. G Held 1. The proceedings of the Commission were administrative and not judicial and therefore could not be described as civil proceedings. Since issue estoppel was restricted to matters arising from civil actions it did not apply to the proceedings before the Commission. Although the proceedings before the Court of First Instance H and the European Court could properly be described as civil proceedings, the plaintiff and defendants were not parties to a lis and accordingly issue estoppel could not apply to the European decisions. (Post, p. 12C-H and p. 13A-E.) D 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CCC 1091-3297/97/01001-26517.50

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most