Cooperation with national courts (Antitrust)
Requests for information or for an opinion - Article 15(1)
Pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation 1/2003, courts of the Member States may contact the Commission to ask it to transmit to them information in its possession or to give its opinion on questions concerning the application of EU competition rules.
In its Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of [Articles 101 and 102 TFEU], the Commission explained its policy regarding the application of Article 15(1) of Regulation 1/2003.
Requests for information
Scope
A national court may ask the Commission for information it holds, such as:
- documents in its possession;
- information of a procedural nature e.g. whether a case is pending before the Commission, whether the Commission has initiated a procedure, whether it has already taken position or when the Commission is likely to take a decision, so as to be able to determine whether to stay proceedings or whether interim measures should be adopted.
Timing
The Commission will endeavour to provide the national court with the requested information within one month from the date it receives the request. Where the Commission has to ask the national court for further clarification of its request or where the Commission has to consult those who are directly affected by the transmission of the information, that period starts to run from the moment that it receives the required information.
Requests for an opinion
Scope and guidance for drafting requests for an opinion
A national court may ask the Commission for its opinion on economic, factual and legal matters concerning the application of EU competition rules.
To ensure that the Commission has a clear understanding of the factual and legal context of the proceedings, the request for an opinion should:
- include a brief account of the subject-matter of the dispute and the relevant findings of fact, or, at least, set out the factual situation on which the question referred is based,
- explain the reasons which prompted the national court to request an opinion; and
- include, where appropriate, a summary of the main arguments of the parties.
We also recommend:
- to keep requests for an opinion as short as possible and to use simple, clear and concise language, in view of the frequent need for the Commission to translate them.
- to number the points or paragraphs of the request for an opinion.
- to include the question(s) of the request in a clearly identified section.
Timing
The Commission will endeavour to provide the national court with the requested opinion within four months from the date it receives the request. Where the Commission has requested the national court for further information in order to enable it to formulate its opinion, that period starts to run from the moment that it receives the additional information.
Opinions issued
The opinions are sorted by year in which the opinion was issued.
The opinions published below are those for which the national court has granted permission for publication.
2009
| Case |
National Court |
Commission opinion |
National Court
judgment |
Summary & background |
UAB Schneidersöhne Baltija/UAB Libra Vitalis |
Administrative Supreme Court of Lithuania |
20/07/2009
(bilingual en-fr; lt)  |
|
|
2007
| Case |
National Court |
Commission opinion |
National Court
judgment |
Summary & background |
Danska Staten genom BornholmsTrafiken v. Ystad Hamn Logistik Aktiebolag |
Hogsta Domstolen |
16/02/2007
original version sv |
|
|
2006
| Case |
National Court |
Commission opinion |
National Court
judgment |
Summary & background |
| Dutch mussels producers |
The Hague Appeal Court (Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage) |
23/05/2006 (nl ) |
24/04/2008 (nl ) |
On 23 May 2006, the Commission issued an Opinion answering to a request of the The Hague Appeal Court in the Netherlands of 27 January 2005. The The Hague Appeal Court requested the Commission for an Opinion under Article 15(1) of Regulation 1/2003 in the context of a dispute as regards the compatibility with EU competition law of a division of fishing quota of mussel seeds by the Dutch Cooperative Organisation of Producers of the Dutch Mussels Culture (CPNM). One of the main questions that arose in the context of this case related to whether or not the regulation of the fishing quota of mussel seeds fulfilled the conditions of Regulation 26/1962 and therefore – on the basis of Article 36 of the EC Treaty – fell outside the scope of application of EU competition law.
In its Opinion, the Commission holds that the division of mussels quota seem to meet the conditions of Article 2(1) second sentence of Regulation 26/1962, which concerns agreements concluded in the framework of a national market organisation:
- the CPNM qualifies as a farmers' association within the meaning of Regulation 26/2962;
- the Regulation Mussel Fishing, in which the system of division of quotas is laid down therefore seems to qualify as a decision of a farmers' association;
- as the division of quota only concerns the Netherlands, it seems that it constitutes a decision of a farmers' association belonging to a single Member State which concern the production of agricultural products;
- the system does not concern prices; and
- it seems that competition is not excluded and that the objectives of the common agricultural policy are not jeopardised.
On 24 April 2008, the The Hague Appeal Court rendered its final judgment in this case. In its judgment, it followed the Opinion submitted by the Commission and, among others, on that basis came to an annulment of the first instance judgment.
|
2005
| Case |
National Court |
Commission opinion |
National Court
judgment |
Summary & background |
Wallonie Expo SA/FEBIAC asbl |
Cour d'appel de Bruxelles |
02/02/2005 (fr ) |
|
|
SABAM c Productions and Marketing |
Cour d'appel de Bruxelles |
02/02/2005 (fr ) |
|
|
Laurent Emond c Brasserie Haacht |
Cour d'appel de Bruxelles |
02/02/2005 (fr ) |
|
|
|
