CASE C-309/99 Wouters

Thèmes abordés

WOUTERS - CASE C-309/99 (2002) - Ancillary restraints - competition law

Résumé du document

This case involves a dispute between on the one hand claimants Mr. Wouters, Mr Savelbergh, Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Andersen & Co. Belastingadviseurs and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV and the Bar of the Netherlands on the other hand. Claimants called for the annulment of the decision related to the interdiction of entering a multi-disciplinary partnership between lawyers and accountants with regards to the 1993 Regulation.

Extraits

[...] Wouters, Mr Savelbergh, Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Andersen & Co. Belastingadviseurs and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV and the Bar of the Netherlands on the other hand. Claimants called for the annulment of the decision related to the interdiction of entering a multi- disciplinary partnership between lawyers and accountants with regards to the 1993 Regulation. - In 1994 and 1995, Mr Wouters and Mr Savelbergh, both members of the Bar of Amsterdam, successively informed the Rotterdam and Amesterdam Supervisory Board of their intentions to practise in multi-disciplinary partnerships between lawyers and accountants. [...]

[...] Accountants were inadmissible. However it asked for an interpretation of several provisions of Community law for the others appeals. Therefore, the Raad van State decided to stay proceedings and to refer nine questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling. - The European Court declares that a national regulation such as en conclut que qu'une réglementation nationale telle que la Samenwerkingsverordening 1993 adopted by an institution such as the Bar of the Netherlands do not infringe article 81 paragraph 1 EC. [...]

[...] Plus, the potential of categories exception (architects for instance) might as well be relatively large considering the Arduino case. The control of proportionality The introduction of the rule of reason in Europe? Finally, the case introduced a new notion in this restriction of competition rules by using the notion of control of proportionality inherent to the American concept of the rule of reason. Actually, the Wouters case introduces the theory of pressing requirement of general interest into the interpretation and application of article 81(1) EC and a reconsideration of the so-called “rule of reason” giving to the American concept a European dimension from free movement to the competition area. [...]

[...] ( ) it does not appear that the effects restrictive of competition such as those resulting for members of the Bar practising in the Netherlands from a regulation such as the 1993 Regulation go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the proper practice of the legal profession. 3. Finally, the Court declares that every agreement between undertakings or every decision of an association of undertakings which restricts the freedom of action of the parties or of one of them necessarily falls within the prohibition laid down in Article EC] . [...]

[...] The assessment of ancillary restraints is limited to determining whether, in the specific context of the main non-restrictive transaction or activity, a particular restriction is necessary for the implementation of that transaction or activity and proportionate to it. If on the basis of objective factors it can be concluded that without the restriction the main non-restrictive transaction would be difficult or impossible to implement, the restriction may be regarded as objectively necessary for its implementation and proportionate to it. Facts - This case involves a dispute between on the one hand claimants Mr. [...]