Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Bernard Crehan
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] UKHL 38, 19 July 2006. Concerns whether a pub company's beer ties were anti-competitive in the European Community. IPC appealed against a CA decision that its beer ties breached EC Treaty (Nice) Art 81(1). The judge in the original case decided that a condition set out in "Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG" ([1991] ECR 1-935) had not been satisfied in relation to the UK beer market, and therefore IPC had not breached Art 81. The CA reversed this decision, holding that it went against the Commission's view in respect of another brewer, and thus did not comply with Art 10's duty of sincere co-operation. "Held": appeal allowed. There was no possibility of conflict, in the sense discussed in the relevant authorities, between a decision of the Commission and a decision of the national court on the application of EC law. The Commission's decision should be treated simply as evidence properly admissible before an English court.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134418-1001 |
[2006] UKHL 38, 19 July 2006. Concerns whether a pub company's beer ties were anti-competitive in the European Community. IPC appealed against a CA decision that its beer ties breached EC Treaty (Nice) Art 81(1). The judge in the original case decided that a condition set out in "Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG" ([1991] ECR 1-935) had not been satisfied in relation to the UK beer market, and therefore IPC had not breached Art 81. The CA reversed this decision, holding that it went against the Commission's view in respect of another brewer, and thus did not comply with Art 10's duty of sincere co-operation. "Held": appeal allowed. There was no possibility of conflict, in the sense discussed in the relevant authorities, between a decision of the Commission and a decision of the national court on the application of EC law. The Commission's decision should be treated simply as evidence properly admissible before an English court.