Arbitration and Antitrust An overview of EU and national case law

[18] ATF 118 II 193, decision of 28 April 1992.
[19] Louis Dreyfus Négoce SA v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc., 252
F.3d 218 (2nd Cir. 2001).
[20] JLM Industries, Inc., JLM International, Inc., JLM Industries
(Europe) BV, JLM Europe BV, and Tolson Holland v. Stolt-Nielsen
SA, Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd., Odfjell ASA, Odfjell
USA, Inc., Jo Tankers BV, Jo Tankers, Inc., and Tokyo Marine Co.
Ltd., 387 F.3d 163 (2nd Cir. 2004) rev’d on other matters.
[21] 559 U.S. (USSC, 2010). See Eric Stock, The US Supreme Court
shows to be driven by concerns with burdens of US litigation
process according to recent antitrust decisions (Stolt-Nielsen/
AnimalFeeds), 27 April 2010, e-Competitions, n° 35750.
[22] Maryland District Court, 28 October 2011, AT & T Mobility
LLC v. Fisher, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 5169349 (D.Md., 2011).
See Jeffrey May, A US Federal District Court rules against customers’
efforts to use arbitration to challenge a merger in the mobile
sector (AT&T Mobility/Smith), 7 October 2011, e-Competitions,
n° 39901.
[23] Case cit. in note 2 above.
[24] Case cit. in note 12 above.
[25] Eco Swiss, case cit. in note 3 above, at para. 39.
[26] Swiss Supreme Court, 8 March 2006, 4P.278/2005. See Laurence
Burger, Constantine Partasides, A Swiss Federal tribunal’s
decision puts into question the arbitrator’s public policy dilemma
with regard to competition law, 8 March 2006, e-Competitions,
n° 1384.
[27] Case cit. in note 2 above.
[28] Baxter v. Abbott Laboratories, 315 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2003).
[29] Eco Swiss, case cit. in note 3 above, at para. 32.
[30] Case cit. in note 12 above.
[31] Case cit. in note 14 above.
[32] ECJ, June 4th, 2009, Pannon GSM, Case C-243/08.
[33] Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Paris, 1er Ch. Civ.), 18
November 2004, Thalès Air Défense v. Euromissile, 2005 (3) Rev.
Arb. 751.
[34] ECJ, September 20th, 2001, Courage and Crehan,
Case C-453/99, [2001] ECR I-6297.
[35] French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), 23 March
2006, SNF v. Cytec Industries BV, 135 JDI (Clunet) 1107.
See Marie-Charlotte Rouzier, The French Supreme Court rules on
the criminal rules governing the limitation period in an abuse of
dominant position case (SNF / Cytec Industries), 19 March 2008,
e-Competitions, n° 19857.
[36] Milan Court of Appeal, 5 July 2006, Terra Armata Srl v. Tensacciai
SpA, reported in 25Bull. ASA 618.
[37] Florence Court of Appeal, 21 March 2006, Soc Nuovo
Pignone v. Schlumberger SA.
[38] Brussel Civil Court (Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles),
8 March 2007, 2007 (2) Rev. Arb. 303.
[39] Brussel Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Bruxelles, 17e Ch.), 22
June 2009, 2009 (3) Rev. Arb. 574.
[40] Düsseldorf Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf), 21
July 2004, VI-Sch (Kart) 1/02. See Petra Linsmeier, Moritz Lichtenegger,
The German Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf holds
that for foreign arbitration awards to be recognised and enforced
in Germany they have to comply with fundamental provisions of
German and European competition law (Regenerative Warmetauscher),
21 July 2004, e-Competitions, n° 21234.
[41] Thüringen Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht Thüringen), 8
August 2007, A.G. Co v. Sch. AG, VI Sch (Kart) 01/02, OLGR
Jena 2008, pp. 162-164. See Stefan Thomas, A German Court
deals with Art. 81 EC and § 1 ARC as part of the ordre public with
respect to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (Schott), 8
August 2007, e-Competitions, n° 22882.
[42] Hague District Court, 9 August 2007, The Netherlands v. B.V.
Nederlands Elekriciteit Administratiekantoor, case number
255948/HA ZA 05-3983.
[43] Hague Court of Appeal, 24 March 2005, Marketing Displays International
v. Van Raalte. See Tristan Baume, A Dutch Court refuses
to order the execution of an award adopted by an American arbitration
panel for breach of a licensing agreement, on the grounds
that it violates Art. 81.1 EC and is contrary to public policy (Marketing
Displays International v. VR), 24 March 2005, e-Competitions,
n° 35.
[44] Voorzieningenrechter, Rechtbank, The Hague, 27 May
2004, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2006 - Volume XXXI, A.
J. van den Berg, ed., (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International
2006) 808.
[45] Dresden Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht Dresden), 20 April
2005, 11 Sch 01/05.
[46] ECJ, April 27th, 1994, Commune d’Almelo a. o., Case C-393/92,
[1994] ECR I-1477.
[47] ECJ, March 23th, 1982, Nordsee, Case 102/81, [1982] ECR
1095.
[48] Case C-125/04, Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier v. Transorient
— Mosaïque Voyages et Culture SA [2005] ECR I-923, judgment
of 27 January 2005.
[49] Case cit. in note 1 above.
[50] Case cit. in note 10 above.
[51] Case cit. in note 16 above.
[52] Swiss Supreme Court, 30 December 1994, 4P.115/1994.
Arbitration and Antitrust: An overview of EU and national case law
PHILLIP LANDOLT l 13 April 2012 l e-Competitions l N°45083 l www.concurrences.com
7