Arbitration and Antitrust An overview of EU and national case law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[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
e-Competitions is the only online resource that provides a current database of summaries of antitrust cases from 45 jurisdictions. e-Competitions concentrates on cases summaries in reaction to a growing number of publications attempting to cover all aspects of antitrust sources in various formats. An antitrust case summaries database Format Each case summary or regulation summary contains a case description, the provisions implemented and a brief comment. All articles are linked to the text of the case/regulation commented in its original language. Contents 6,000 case summaries on courts and competition authorities decisions and regulations summaries from a network of 1,270 antitrust experts: enforcers, academics, private practice lawyers, or in-house counsels. Emphasis is put on national Courts' decisions, as opposed to competition authorities' decisions, as these are less available on the Internet. Jurisdictions 55 jurisdictions covered, including EU law. This international network makes it possible to search worldwide for any given antitrust issue. It provides search results with national, foreign and EU case laws, which although not binding, constitute useful precedents. Advisory and Editorial Boards e-Competitions draws upon highly distinguished editors, all leading experts in national or international antitrust. Advisory Board Members include: Christopher Bellamy, David Evans, Eleanor Fox, Damien Geradin, Fred Jenny, Wouter Wils… Partners Academics partners: Antitrust research centres from leading universities write regularly in e-Competitions. These articles are financed by the law firm’s fees acting as Corporate Partners. Law firms: Global law firms and antitrust niche firms write specifically for e-Competitions detailed cases summaries. Subscribers As of 1st June 2012, there were 22.000 subscribers with an average of 35.000 monthly visits to the web site. Visits arise from 165 countries, the top 4 being the USA, UK, Benelux and France (source: Google Analytics). Analysis of e-Competitions registered users by occupation and localization is as follow: Private practice lawyers 30 % In-house counsels 25 % Enforcers 20 % Economists 10 % Academics 10 % Europe 45 % America 40 % Asia 10 % 6000 Articles online 1270 Authors 55 Jurisdictions 22000 Subscribers
Page 1 and 2: Arbitration and Antitrust: An overv
Page 3 and 4: tions, but the one it considered th
Page 5 and 6: In Baxter v. Abbott Laboratories [2
Page 7: !!!"#$%&'(')#*%# Treatment of +,-.-

Arbitration and Antitrust An overview of EU and national case law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?