EEC Treaty Research Articles

Dishonourable Defences: The Use of Injunctions and the EEC Treaty - Case Study of the Shops Act 1950

The Modern Law ReviewVolume 54, Issue 1 p. 72-87 Free Access Dishonourable Defences: The Use of Injunctions and the EEC Treaty — Case Study of the Shops Act 1950 Paul Diamond, Paul Diamond BarristerSearch for more papers by this author Paul Diamond, Paul Diamond BarristerSearch for more papers by this author First published: January 1991 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb02636.xCitations: 2 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume54, Issue1January 1991Pages 72-87 RelatedInformation

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE TO THE COMMON AIR TRANSPORT POLICY: THE DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES OF THE TREATY OF ROME TO AIR TRANSPORT

Introduction: the issue Applicability of the general Treaty provisions to air transport The original attitude of the Commission The applicability - initially restricted - of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty to air transport Development of the legislation and of the case-law The scope of application of secondary Community law in the area of air transport The application of the prohibition of restrictive agreements under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty in relations with non-member countries The unrestricted applicability of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty to air transport Problems in the application of the new law on air transport Conclusion Annex: Article 74 and Articles 84 to 90 of the EEC Treaty

European Community Environmental Policy and Law

The environmental policy of the European Community is, in many ways, a paradox. The original Treaty of Rome made no provision for an environmental protection policy and the Treaty certainly did not provide an explicit basis for Community legislation in the field of the environment. Nevertheless over 100 legal instruments have been enacted in this area by the Community, the European Court of Justice has described environmental protection as '. .. one of the Community's essential objectives',1 and it could now be counted as one of the more successful policies of the Community, both in terms of the areas of activity that it covers and the degree of popular support which it is beginning to command. It is indeed a monument to a pragmatic or flexible approach to the interpretation of the aims of the EEC Treaty.2

Determining the Origin of Goods for the Purposes of Article 133 of the EEC Treaty

This article deals with the question which rules of origin to apply in order to determine the origin of products imported from the non-independent territories associated with the European Communities. This is examined by means of an analysis of the nature of the association of these countries with the EC, the text of Article 133 of the EEC Treaty, as well as purpose and relevant objectives of the association. It will also be examined whether a restrictive rule of origin for the purpose of preventing trade deflection is compatible with the EEC Treaty. The main thesis is that in the trade between the EC and the ‘Overseas Countries and Territories’ (OCT) the same rules of origin should apply as for the intra-community trade.

Community Constitutional Law: Article 5 EEC Treaty

Community Constitutional Law: Article 5 EEC Treaty

All Roads Lead to Brussels: Towards a Uniform European Civil Procedure

On 1 January 1958 the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC Treaty) entered into force. The objectives of this Treaty are: the harmonious development of economic activities throughout the Community, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to the Community. These objectives are to be achieved by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of the Member States. This should ultimately result in the realisation of a common market, characterised by the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. Since the territory of the Contracting States is regarded as forming a single entity, the common market will have the characteristics of a vast domestic market.

From Legal Form toward Economic Efficiency—Article 85(1) of the Eec Treaty in Contrast to U.S. Antitrust

From Legal Form toward Economic Efficiency—Article 85(1) of the Eec Treaty in Contrast to U.S. Antitrust

L’esperienza spagnola nella difesa della concorrenza

L’esperienza spagnola nella difesa della concorrenza

La legge italiana sulla concorrenza nell’ottica svizzera

La legge italiana sulla concorrenza nell’ottica svizzera

Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.736 – Moosehead/Whitbread) 23 March 1990

Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.736 – Moosehead/Whitbread) 23 March 1990

Implications of 1992 for EEC farm and food policies

Three broad issues are first discussed: Article 8A of the EEC Treaty does not in itself ensure that a single market will be effected on 1 January 1993; the Protocol on German Internal Trade raises particular difficulties; and third countries, particularly in the context of the GATT talks, must not be neglected. ‘Green money’ and monetary compensatory amounts, mutual recognition, irradiation, and non-returnables in Denmark are four particular policy issues discussed before the question is raised whether 1992 will bring benefits. Few studies of the impact of 1992 have been published, and none can be said to have definitively answered this question.

Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.734—Filrn purchases by German television stations) 15 September 1989

Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.734—Filrn purchases by German television stations) 15 September 1989

A Strict but Liberalizing Interpretation of EEC Treaty Articles 67(1) and 68(1) on Capital Movements

A Strict but Liberalizing Interpretation of EEC Treaty Articles 67(1) and 68(1) on Capital Movements

Decision relating to a proceeding under article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 Welded Steel mesh) 2 August 1989

Decision relating to a proceeding under article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 Welded Steel mesh) 2 August 1989

Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/27.958 - National Sulphuric Acid Association) 9 June 1989

Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/27.958 - National Sulphuric Acid Association) 9 June 1989

The Next Step in European Community Harmonization of Company Law: Regulation of Public Bids?

An article in a previous issue of this journal discussed some developments which might lead to a more developed system of pre-merger control in the European Community. Any regulation in that area will be largely a matter of antitrust law. The EEC Treaty provides for the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted. The regulation will be part of that system. It will require ‘prenotification’ of mergers exceeding certain thresholds in order to enable the European Commission to judge their likely impact on the structure of the relevant product market and, if necessary, to prohibit such mergers. Most mergers will not be prohibited and not even be subject to the control envisaged by this new regime.

Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.865, PVC)

Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.865, PVC)

Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.866, LdPE)

Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.866, LdPE)

A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v. Commission of the European Communities

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.

Decision of 7 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.906, flat glass)

Decision of 7 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.906, flat glass)