|
Publishers Abstract:
The litigation in Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) and others v. Crehan had already spanned 13 years when it reached the House of Lords in June 2006. During that time the case had established several important points of legal principle. These included the availability as a matter of European Community (EC) law, of a remedy in damages for breach of the EC Competition rules and the right, in certain circumstances, of a party to a contract which infringes Article 81 EC, to sue his co-contractor in damages. This article contrasts the approach taken by the House of Lords to the concept of "deference" with the approach adopted in other areas of law. Finally it suggests an alternative approach which national courts and competition authorities could adopt when faced with Commission decisions in similar circumstances. Their Lordships' ruling on the scope of the duty of consistency raises issues of considerable general public importance wider than the specific concerns of Inntrepreneur, Crehan or either intervener.
|
