- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-384/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4 SL v GALP Energía España SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels — Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Article 12(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Articles 4(a) and 5(a) — Period of exclusivity — Agreement of minor importance)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CB0384
62013CB0384
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
16.2.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 56/3
(Case C-384/13)(1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels - Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Article 12(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Articles 4(a) and 5(a) - Period of exclusivity - Agreement of minor importance))
(2015/C 056/03)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4 SL
Respondent: GALP Energía España SAU
Operative part of the judgment
1)A contract, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the creation of a surface right, in favour of a supplier of petroleum products, allowing that supplier to build a service station and let the service station to the owner of the land, and which contains a long-term exclusive purchasing obligation, does not have the effect of restricting competition appreciably and is therefore not caught by the prohibition set out in Article 81(1) EC given that, first, that supplier’s market share is less than 3 %, compared to the cumulative market share of about 70 % held by three other suppliers, and, second, the duration of that contract is not manifestly excessive compared to the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
2)Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that a contract — containing a non-compete clause — which was already in force on 31 May 2000 and which satisfies the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997, but which does not satisfy the conditions laid down by Regulation No 2790/1999, is excepted from the prohibition set out in Article 81(1) EC until 31 December 2001.
Language of the case: Spanish
(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.