|
This is an interesting problem. But I have not read a lot of reference concerning it. In this regard it is of much interest is that the Commission promised that they will
- will adopt a Decision on the application of Article 86 of the Treaty to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest by July 2005,
- will adopt a Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation by July 2005,
- will adopt an amendment of Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings by July 2005,
- will further clarify under which conditions public service compensations may constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87 (1) by July 2005.
So I think I had better study it until the appearance of these new instruments.
【注释】See, John Temple Lang, EUROPEAN UNION LAW RULES ON STATE MEASURES RESTRICTING COMPETITION，Finnish yearbook of European Law, Dec. 2003.
See, Case C-157/94, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, , para 37; Case T-260/94 Air Line, , Para 135.
See, Faul & Nikpat, The EC Law of Competition, , P. 315.
Herein public authority can be of a national, regional or local nature. See, Commission Decision (EEC) 82/371 Navewa-Anseau OJ at L167/68, para. 65.
See, Case 127-73, Belgische Radio en Televisie v SV SABAM and NV Fonior, 1974, Para. 20; Case C-127/73, BRT v. SABAM (BRT Ⅱ), , Para. 22; Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reiseburo GmbH v. Zentrale Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV, , Para. 55.
See, Francoise Blum, State Monopoly Under EC Law, 1998, page 25.
See, Van Bael & Bellis, Competition law of European Community, fourth edition , page 1010.
See, Case 7/82, Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL) v Commission of the European Communities, 1983, Para. 31.
Uniform Eurocheques OJ L35/43, 3 CMLR 434.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 285.
See, C-393/92 Gemeente Almelo and Others v. Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij NV, , para 47.
See, Francoise Blum, State Monopoly Under EC Law, 1998, page 19.
See definition of ‘special rights’ and ‘exclusive rights’contained in Commission Directive (EC) 94/46 on satellite communications OJ L268/15.
See, GREEN PAPER ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST, COM (2003) 270 final, P. 7.
Of course some authors thought differently that Article 16 changes nothing of the case law by the Court. See, Malcolm Ross, ARTICLE 16 E.C. AND SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST: FROM DEROGATION TO OBLIGATION, E.L. Rev. 2000, 25(1), 22-38.
Case C-10/71, Minstere Public of Luxembourg v. Muller , paras. 14-15
See, GREEN PAPER ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST, COM(2003) 270 final, P. 9-12.
See, White Paper on Service of General Interest, COM (2004) 374 final, P. 6.
See, Services of Genereal Interest: Pulic Interest, Democracy Choice, The Council of European Municipals and Regions, http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest/docs/associations_enterprise/cemr_en.pdf .
See, See, GREEN PAPER ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST, COM (2003) 270 final, Part 1.2.
Case C-10/71, Minstere Public of Luxembourg v. Muller , Para. 14-15
Case C-66/86, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reiseburo GmbH v. Zentrale zur Bekampfung Unlauteren Wettwerbs eV , ECR 803, 4 CMLR 102.
See, Case C-157/94, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, .
Case C-320/91, Corbeau ECR I-2533, 4 CMLR 621.
Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France SA v. Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genoa ECR I-3949, 5 CMLR 402.
Case C-203/96, Dusseldorp ECR I-4075, 3 CMLR 873.
Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glockner v. Landkreis Sudwestpfalz ECR I-8089, 4 CMLR 726.
See, Case C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA ECR I-5973.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in joint cases C-180-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten ECR I-6451.
See, Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials, second edition , page 538.
See, Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH, 1991, Para. 21.
See, GREEN PAPER ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST, COM (2003) 270 final, Para. 16.
Case C-320/91, Corbeau ECR I-2533, 4 CMLR 621, Para. 19.
The ‘general’ nature of services of general economic interest must not be confused with the un-general nature of the former word ‘entrust’. The word ‘general’ hereinto indicates the general benefit producing from service of general economic interest, and not that the exclusive rights generally granted to any undertakings do not fall into the scope of Article 86(2). Therefore in my humble mind Dr. Sierra made a tiny inaccuracy in explaining the meaning of ‘general’ in combination with the case BRT II in his doctor thesis. In that case it is, in my view, the un-specific nature of the grant of copyright, an exclusive right but can be widely gotten by any undertakings, and not the un-general nature of copyright that lead to inapplicability of Article 86(2). See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, Para 8.29.
See, C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA, , Para. 17; Case C-41/90, Hofner v. Macrotron, , Para. 28; Case C-260/89, ERT v. DEP, , 31.
See, See, GREEN PAPER ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST, COM (2003) 270 final, Para 17.
See, Leonor Moral Soriano, HOW PROPORTIONATE SHOULD ANTI-COMPETITIVE STATE INTERVENTION BE, E.L. Rev. 2003, 28(1).
See, Green Paper on services of general interest, COM (2003)270, 21.5.2004, P. 7.
See, Services of General Economic Interest Exclusion, Office for Fair Trading of United Kingdom, Para. 4.2. http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/336EFEC6-CC0E-4313-B026-A7AA1BB3714E/0/oft421.pdf
See, Case C-189/95, Harry Franzén, 1997.
See, Van Bael & Bellis, Competition Law of European Community, fourth edition, 2005, P. 1013.
This position was adopted by the Commission in Recommendation 62/1500 French Tobacco Monopoly OJ 48 and Recommendation 62/1502 French Match Monopoly OJ 48.
See, Faull & Nikpay, The EC Law of Competition, , Para. 5.129.
See, Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials, second edition , page 571.
See, Case C-202/88, France v. Commission, , Para 12.
See, Case C-66/82, Fromançais SA v Fonds d''orientation et de régularisation des marchés agricoles (FORMA) , Para 8.
Some authors thought that the principle of proportionality should include also the proportionality test in the strict sense. (See, Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law, 1996, P. 191-194) however from my opinion the distinction between proportionality test in the strict sense and suitability in combination with necessity is so unclear that one normally can hardly draw. Therefore I prefer to integrate the three sub-principles of proportionality into two, suitability and necessity.
See, Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH, 1991.
See, Case C-320/91, Corbeau ECR I-2533, 4 CMLR 621.
See, Case C-157/94, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, .
See, Case 9-73, Carl Schlüter v. Hauptzollamt Lörrach, 1973, Para. 23.
This question is closely related to suitability principle.
See, Nicholas Emiliou, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law, 1996, P. 184.
This problem is much connected to necessity principle.
See, Case C-41/90, Hofner v. Macrotron, , Para. 25.
See, Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH, 1991, para 34.
It is the manifest error of exclusivity in question.
See, Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz, 2001, Para. 62.
See, Green Paper on services of general interest, COM (2003)270, 21.5.2004, Para. 50.
See, Leo Flynn and Cesare Rizza, Postal Services and Competition Law: A Review and Analysis of the EC Case-Law, World Competition 24(4): 475-511, 2001, P. 478.
See, Faull & Nikpay, The EC Law of Competition, , Para. 5.139.
See, Navewa-Anseau OJ L167/39, para 66; British Telecommunication OJ L360/36, para 41.
See, Case C-320/91, Corbeau ECR I-2533, 4 CMLR 621, Para. 17.
See other cases, Case C-393/92, Almelo and Others v Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij ECR I-1477, para. 46; Case C-157/94, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, para 35; Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz, , Para. 57.
See, Case C-320/91, Corbeau ECR I-2533, 4 CMLR 621, Para. 19.
See, Vito Auricchio, Services of General Economic Interest and the Application of EC Competition Law, World Competition 24(1): 65-91, 2001, P. 78.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 307.
This discriminative treatment can be also found in other cases.See, Case C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA ECR I-5973; Case T-260/94 Air Line, ; Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glockner v. Landkreis Sudwestpfalz .
See, Lennart Ritter & W. David Braun, European Competition Law: a Practitioner’s Guide, third edition, , P. 977.
See, Case 66/86, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., 1989, Para. 43-52.
See, Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris v. Commission of the European Communities, 2002, Para. 114..
The word of ‘Traditional’ was reiterated in Ambulanz Glöckner. See, Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz, 2001, Para. 60.
See, Case C-340/99, TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiane SpA and Others, 2001, Para. 53.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 334-336.
See, Green Paper on services of general interest, COM (2003)270, 21.5.2004, Para. 52.
See, Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials, second edition , page 573.
See, Case C-340/99, TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiane SpA and Others, 2001, Para. 57-58.
See, Case C-320/91, Corbeau ECR I-2533, 4 CMLR 621.
See, Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France SA v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. and Others ECR I-3949.
See, Case C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA ECR I-5973.
See, C-393/92 Gemeente Almelo and Others v. Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij NV, .
See, Case C-157/94, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1997.
See, 82/371/EEC: Commission Decision of 17 December 1981 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, Official Journal L 167, Para. 66.
See, Case 66/86, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., ; Case C-320/91, Corbeau ; Case T-260/94 Air Line, ; Case C-18/88, RTT v. GB-INNO-BM SA 。
See, Case 66/86, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., , 51.
See, Case 66/86, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., , 57.
See, Case 66/86, Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., ], 56.
See, Case C-157/94, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, para 58.
See, C-203/96, Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV and Others v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 1998, Para. 68.
See, footnote 58.
See, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Exclusive Rights and State Monopolies under EC Law, English translation, 1999, P. 341-346.
See, White Paper on Service of General Interest, COM (2004) 374 final, P. 15.
|
