An Post/Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems Ltd/Zurich Insurance Company. [1995] IECA 451 (18th December, 1995)
The agreement does not have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition in the State, as the restrictions are necessary to prevent fraudulent use and ensure system reliability, and An Post does not restrict the number of suppliers or their commercial terms.
- Citation
- [1995] IECA 451
- Parties
- Party: An Post; Party: Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems Limited; Party: Zurich Insurance Company
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Competition Authority Decision / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Certificate issued; agreement does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
- Legal Topics
- Section 4 Competition Act 1991, Agreement Between Undertakings, Supply of Franking Machines, Market Restriction, Statutory Monopoly
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
An Post
Party
Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems Limited
Party
Zurich Insurance Company
Party
Procedural Posture
Competition Authority Decision / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the agreement between An Post, Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems Ltd, and Zurich Insurance Company restricts, prevents, or distorts competition in the Irish market for franking machines under Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Ratio Decidendi
The agreement does not have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition in the State, as the restrictions are necessary to prevent fraudulent use and ensure system reliability, and An Post does not restrict the number of suppliers or their commercial terms.
Court Disposition
Certificate issued; agreement does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Orders
- The Competition Authority certifies that the agreement of 24 January 1994 between An Post, Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems Ltd and Zurich Insurance Company as to the use of franking machines does not offend against Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment