Michael Hamilton Shaw and Timothy John Falla v Commission of the European Communities. (Competition) [2002] EUECJ T-131/99 (21 March 2002)

Michael Hamilton Shaw and Timothy John Falla v Commission of the European Communities. (Competition) [2002] EUECJ T-131/99 (21 March 2002)

The applicants were individually concerned as parties to the exempted agreements and retained an interest in annulment due to ongoing national proceedings. The Commission did not commit a manifest error in its economic assessment: specification of the tie by beer type did not increase market foreclosure compared to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EUECJ T-131/99
Parties
Applicant: Mr M. H. Shaw; Applicant: Mr T. J. Falla; Applicant: WPP Luxembourg Appeal Group Ltd; Respondent: Whitbread plc; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment (eu Competition Law) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance (third Chamber)
Outcome
Action dismissed as unfounded.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Purchasing Agreements, Block Exemption Regulation, Article 85 EC Treaty (now Article 81 Ec), Individual Exemption, Market Foreclosure, Price Discrimination, Countervailing Benefits, Admissibility of Actions
Competition Law European Union Law Exclusive Purchasing Agreements Block Exemption Regulation Article 85 EC Treaty (now Article 81 Ec) Individual Exemption Market Foreclosure Price Discrimination +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M. H. Shaw

Applicant

Mr T. J. Falla

Applicant

WPP Luxembourg Appeal Group Ltd

Applicant

Whitbread plc

Respondent

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment (eu Competition Law) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance (third Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are individually concerned by the contested decision under Article 230 EC
  2. 2 Whether the applicants retain an interest in bringing proceedings after termination of their leases
  3. 3 Whether the Commission erred in granting an individual exemption under Article 85(3) EC to Whitbread's standard leases

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were individually concerned as parties to the exempted agreements and retained an interest in annulment due to ongoing national proceedings. The Commission did not commit a manifest error in its economic assessment: specification of the tie by beer type did not increase market foreclosure compared to specification by brand; the reference group for price comparison was appropriate; and countervailing benefits compensated for price differentials in recent years. The action was therefore dismissed as unfounded.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as unfounded.

Orders

  • Applicants to pay the costs.