Court of Justice 10-04-1992 ECLI:EU:C:1992:189

Data

Court: Court of Justice

Case date: 10 april 1992

OPINION 1/92 OF 10. 4. 1992 OPINION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 228 OP THE EEC TREATY OPINION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 228 OF THE EEC TREATYOPINION 1/92 OF 10.4.1992

The Court of Justice has received a request for an opinion, lodged at the Court Registry on 27 February 1992, which was made by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, according to which

‘The Council, the Commission or a Member State may obtain beforehand the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the provisions of this Treaty. Where the opinion of the Court of Justice is adverse, the agreement may enter into force only in accordance with Article 236.’

I — Description of the request for an opinion

On 14 December 1991 the Court deliveredOpinion 1/91 on the compatibility with the provisions of the EEC Treaty of a draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area (hereinafter referred to as ‘the agreement’ and ‘the EEA’, respectively). According to that Opinion, the system of judicial supervision which the agreement proposed to set up was incompatible with the Treaty.

On 14 February 1992 negotiations between the Commission and the EFTA countries culminated in a number of amendments. By this request the Commission seeks the Court's opinion on the compatibility with the EEC Treaty of the renegotiated provisions of the agreement and, more specifically, of the new Articles 56 and 111.

The text of the amended provisions of the agreement was enclosed with the request for an opinion. The Court's Opinion is given on the basis of the French version of the agreement. Where, in this Opinion, the words ‘the Court’ or ‘the Court of Justice’ are used the reference is to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

II — Procedure

In accordance with Article 107(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, the request for an opinion was served on the Council and on the Member States. No observations were submitted.

At its request, the European Parliament was given leave to submit observations.

The Advocates General were heard by the Court in closed session on 31 March 1992 in accordance with Article 108(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

III — Appraisal of the renegotiated agreement

The amendments to the agreement affect the preamble, Part IV, entitled ‘Concurrence et autres règles communes’ (Articles 56 and 64), Chapter 3 of Part VII, entitled ‘Dispositions institutionnelles’, and Protocols 33, 34 and 35.

The following recital has been added to the preamble to the agreement:

‘Considérant que, dans le plein respect de l'indépendance des tribunaux, l'objectif des Parties contractantes est d'arriver et de maintenir une interprétation et une application uniformes du présent Accord et de celles des dispositions de la législation communautaire qui sont en substance reprises dans l'Accord et d'arriver à un traitement égal des individus et des opérateurs économiques au regard des quatre libertés et des conditions de concurrence.’

In Part IV of the agreement, entitled ‘Concurrence et autres regies communes’, the new Articles 56 and 64 read as follows:

‘Article 56

1.
Les cas individuels tombant dans le champ d'application de l'article 53 sont traités par les autorités de surveillance conformément aux dispositions ci-après:

les cas individuels où seul le commerce entre Etats de l'AELE est affecté sont traités par l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE;

sans préjudice du sous-paragraphe (c), l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE décide également, conformément aux dispositions de l'article 58 du Protocole 21 et des règles adoptées pour sa mise en oeuvre, du Protocole 23 et de l'Annexe XIV, des cas où le chiffre d'affaires des entreprises concernées suile territoire des Etats de l'AELE est égal ou supérieur à 33% de leur chiffre d'affaires sur le territoire couvert par le présent Accord;

la Commission des Communautés européennes décide de tous les autres cas, ainsi que de ceux visés au (b) ci-dessus dès lors que le commerce entre Etats membres de la Communauté est affecté, prenant en compte les dispositions prévues à l'article 58, au Protocole 21, au Protocole 23 et à l'Annexe XIV.

2.
Les cas individuels tombant dans le champ d'application de l'article 54 sont traités par l'autorité de surveillance sur le territoire de laquelle est découverte une position dominante. Les règles prévues au paragraphe 1 (b) et (c) ci-dessus s'appliquent si la position dominante existe sur les territoires des deux autorités de surveillance.

3.
⁽¹⁾ Les cas individuels tombant sous l'alinéa (c) du paragraphe 1, dont les effets sur le commerce entre les Etats membres de la Communauté ou sur la concurrence à l'intérieur de la Communauté sont insignifiants sont traités par l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE.

4.
Les termes “entreprise” et “chiffre d'affaires” sont aux fins de l'application du présent article définis au Protocole 22.’

‘Arlicle 64

1.
Si l'une des autorités de surveillance considère que l'application par l'autre autorité de surveillance des articles 61 et 62 et de l'article 5 du Protocole 14 n'est pas conforme au maintien de conditions égales de concurrence sur le territoire couvert paile présent Accord, des échanges de vues ont lieu endéans deux semaines conformément à la procédure prévue au Protocole 17 paragraphe (f).
Si une solution n'a pas été trouvée d'un commun accord à la fin de ce délai de deux semaines, l'autorité compétente de la Partie contractante affectée par la distorsion de concurrence peut immédiatement adopter des mesures provisoires en vue d'y remédier.
Des consultations ont lieu au sein du Comité mixte de l'EEE en vue de trouver une solution communément acceptable.
Si dans les trois mois, le Comité mixte de l'EEE n'a pas été capable de trouver une telle solution, et si la pratique en question cause ou menace de causer une distorsion de concurrence en affectant les échanges entre les Parties contractantes, les mesures provisoires peuvent être remplacées par des mesures définitives, strictement nécessaires pour compenser les effets d'une telle distorsion. Les mesures qui apportent le moins de perturbation au fonctionnement de l'Accord doivent être choisies par priorité.

2.
Les dispositions du présent article s'appliquent également aux monopoles d'État qui sont établies après la signature du présent Accord.’

In Part VII of the Agreement, the subject of which is institutional provisions, section 3 ‘The EEA Courts’ has been deleted (former Articles 95 to 103). Part VII now contains a Chapter 3 entitled ‘Homogénéité, procédure de surveillance et règlement des différends’, the provisions of which read as follows:

‘Section 1 De l'homogénéité

Article 105⁽²⁾

1.
Afin de parvenir à l'objectif que les Parties contractantes se sont fixé d'arriver à une interprétation aussi uniforme que possible des dispositions du présent Accord et de celles de la législation communautaire qui sont reprises en substance dans le présent Accord, le Comité mixte de L'EEE agit conformément au présent article.

2.
Le Comité mixte de 1'EEE procède à l'examen permanent du développement de la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes et de la Cour AELE. A cette fin, les arrêts de ces cours sont transmis au Comité mixte de l'EEE qui agit de telle sorte à préserver l'interprétation homogène du présent Accord.

3.
Si dans un délai de deux mois après que le Comité mixte de l'EEE ait été saisi d'une divergence de jurisprudence de ces deux Cours, celui-ci n'a pas réussi à préserver l'interprétation homogène de l'Accord, la procédure prévue à l'article 111 peut s'appliquer.

Article 106

Dans le souci d'assurer une interprétation du présent Accord aussi uniforme que possible, dans le plein respect de l'indépendance des tribunaux, un système d'échange d'informations concernant les arrêts et/ou jugements rendus par la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, le Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes, la Cour AELE et les juridictions de dernière instance des Etats de l'AELE est établi par le Comité mixte de l'EEE. Ce système comprend:

la transmission au greffe de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes des arrêts et/ou jugements rendus par les juridictions précitées sur l'interprétation et l'application du présent Accord, d'une part, et du Traité établissant la Communauté économique européenne et le Traité établissant la Communauté européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier tels qu'amendés ou complétés, de même que les actes adoptés en application desdits Traités pour autant qu'ils concernent des dispositions qui sont identiques en substance au présent Accord, d'autre part;

le classement de ces arrêts et/ou jugements auprès du greffe de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes y inclus si nécessaire, la reproduction et la publication de traductions et résumés;

la communication par le greffe de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes de tous les documents pertinents aux autorités nationales compétentes qui sont désignées par chaque partie contractante.

Article 107

Les dispositions permettant à un Etat de l'AELE d'autoriser ses juridictions de demander à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes une décision sur l'interprétation d'une disposition de l'Accord EEE figurent au Protocole 34.

Section 2: De la procédure de surveillance

Article 108

1.
Les Etats de l'AELE instituent une autorité de surveillance indépendante, appelée ci-après l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE, de même qu'ils créent des procédures analogues à celles qui prévalent dans la Communauté, y inclus des procédures en vue d'assurer le respect des obligations prévues par l'Accord et le contrôle de la légalité des actes de l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE en matière de concurrence.

2.
Les Etats de l'AELE instituent une Collide Justice ci-après dénommée Cour AELE. La Cour AELE est compétente, conformément à un accord séparé conclu entre les Etats de l'AELE, notamment pour:

les actions concernant la procédure de surveillance à l'égard des Etats de l'AELE;

les recours contre les décisions prises par l'autorité de surveillance de l'AELE dans le domaine de la concurrence;

le règlement des différends entre deux ou plusieurs Etats de l'AELE.

Article 109

1.
La Commission des Communautés européennes agissant sur base du Traité instituant la Communauté Economique Européenne, du Traité instituant la Communauté européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier et du présent Accord, d'une part, et l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE, d'autre part, veillent au respect des obligations qui incombent aux Parties contractantes en vertu du présent Accord.

2.
En vue d'assurer une surveillance uniforme à l'intérieur de 1'EEE, la Commission des Communautés européennes et l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE coopèrent, échangent des informations et se consultent sur toute question de politique de surveillance et les cas individuels.

3.
La Commission des Communautés européennes, d'une part, et l'Autorité de surveillance AELE, d'autre part, reçoivent toute plainte relative à l'application de l'Accord. Elles se communiquent mutuellement les plaintes reçues.

4.
Chacune de ces instances instruit les plaintes qui relèvent de sa compétence de surveillance et répercute, le cas échéant, les plaintes qui relèvent de la compétence de surveillance de l'autre instance à cette dernière.

5.
En cas de désaccord entre les deux instances sur la suite à donner à la plainte ou sur le résultat de l'instruction, chacune des deux instances peut saisir le Comité mixte de 1'EEE qui est alors chargé de traiter l'affaire conformément à l'article 111 ci-après.

Article 110

Les décisions prises par l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE et la Commission des Communautés européennes qui comportent, à la charge des personnes autres que les Etats, une obligation pécuniaire forment titre exécutoire. Il en est de même des jugements rendus dans le cadre du présent Accord par la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, le Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes et la Cour AELE.

L'exécution forcée est régie par les règles de la procédure civile en vigueur dans l'Etat sur le territoire duquel elle a lieu. La formule exécutoire est apposée, sans autre contrôle que celui de la vérification de l'authenticité du titre, par l'autorité que chaque Partie contractante désignera à cet effet et dont elle donnera connaissance aux autres Parties contractantes, à l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE, à la Commission des Communautés européennes, à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, au Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes et à la Cour AELE.

Après l'accomplissement de ces formalités à la demande de l'intéressé, celui-ci peut poursuivre l'exécution forcée en saisissant directement l'organe compétent, conformément à la législation de l'Etat sur le territoire duquel l'exécution forcée doit avoir lieu.

L'exécution forcée ne peut être suspendue qu'en vertu d'une décision de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes s'agissant des décisions de la Commission des Communautés européennes, de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes ou du Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes, ou d'une décision de la Cour AELE s'agissant des décisions de l'Autorité de surveillance de l'AELE ou de la Cour AELE. Toutefois, le contrôle de la régularité des mesures d'exécution forcée relève de la compétence des juridictions des Etats concernés.

Section 3: Du règlement des différends

Article 111

1.
La Communauté ou un Etat de l'AELE peut soumettre tout différend relatif à l'interprétation ou à l'application du présent Accord au Comité mixte de 1'EEE conformément aux dispositions ci-après.

2.
Le Comité mixte de l'EEE peut régler le différend. Tous les éléments d'information utiles pour permettre un examen approfondi de la situation en vue de régler le différend et de rechercher une solution acceptable pour les Parties contractantes sont fournis au Comité mixte de l'EEE. A cette fin, le Comité mixte de l'EEE examine toutes les possibilités en vue de maintenir le bon fonctionnement de l'Accord.

3.
Si le différend porte sur l'interprétation des dispositions du présent Accord, qui sont identiques en substance aux règles correspondantes du Traité instituant la Communauté Economique Européenne et du Traité instituant la Communauté européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier ou des actes adoptés en application de ces deux traités et si le différend n'a pas été réglé dans les trois mois après qu'il ait été porté devant le Comité mixte de l'EEE, les Parties contractantes parties au différend peuvent se mettre d'accord pour demander à la Collide Justices des Communautés européennes de se prononcer sur l'interprétation des règles pertinentes. Si le Comité mixte de l'EEE n'est pas parvenu à une solution du différend dans un délai de six mois à partiide la date à laquelle la procédure a été déclenchée ou si, dans ce même délai, les Parties contractantes parties au différend n'ont pas décidé de demander à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes de se prononcer, une Partie contractante peut, en vue de remédier au déséquilibre possible,

soit prendre une mesure de sauvegarde répondant aux conditions de l'article 112, paragraphe 2, et conformément à la procédure prévue à l'article 113;

soit appliquer l'article 102 mutatis mutandis.

4.
Si le différend porte sur le champ d'application ou la durée des clauses de sauvegarde prises en vertu des articles 111, paragraphe 3 ou 112, ou sur la proportionnalité des mesures de rééquilibrage prises en vertu de l'article 114, et si le Comité mixte de l'EEE n'est pas parvenu à résoudre le différend dans un délai de trois mois après que le conflit ait été porté devant lui, toute Partie contractante peut porter le différend à l'arbitrage conformément aux procédures prévues au Protocole 33. Aucune question d'interprétation des dispositions du présent Accord auxquelles il est fait référence au paragraphe 3 ci-dessus ne peut être réglée dans le cadre de telles procédures d'arbitrage. La sentence arbitrale est contraignante pour les parties au différend.’

Protocol 33, to which Article 111 of the agreement refers, contains the following provisions:

‘Protocole 33: Sur l'arbitrage

1. Si un différend est soumis à l'arbitrage, le tribunal arbitral sera composé de trois membres, à moins que les parties au différend n'en décident autrement.

2. Chacune des deux parties au différend désignera un arbitre clans un délai de trente jours.

3. Les deux arbitres désignés nommeront d'un commun accord un surarbitre qui sera ressortissant d'une des Parties contractantes, mais d'une nationalité différente de celle des arbitres désignés. Si les arbitres ne peuvent se mettre d'accord, dans les deux mois suivant leui désignation, le surarbitre sera choisi par eux sur une liste de sept personnes établie par le Comité mixte de l'EEE.
Le Comité mixte établit et tient à jour cette liste conformément à ses règles de procédure.

4. A moins que les Parties contractantes n'en décident autrement, le tribunal d'arbitrage fixe lui-même ses règles de procédure. Il prend les décisions à la majorité.’

Article 107 of the agreement refers to Protocol 34, which reads as follows:

‘Protocole 34 concernant la possibilité pour les Cour et Tribunaux des Etats de l'AELE de demander à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes de se prononcer sur l'interprétation des règles de l'EEE correspondant à des règles communautaires

Article 1

Lorsqu'une question d'interprétation des dispositions du présent Accord qui sont identiques en substance aux dispositions des Traités établissant les Communautés européennes, tels que modifiés ou complétés, ou des actes adoptés en vertu de ces Traités, est soulevée dans une affaire pendante devant l'une des juridictions d'un Etat de l'AELE, cette juridiction peut, si elle l'estime nécessaire, demander à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, de se prononcer sur cette question.

Article 2

Un Etat de l'AELE, qui entend faire usage du présent Protocole, notifie au dépositaire de l'Accord et à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes dans quelle mesure et selon quelles modalités le Protocole s'appliquera à ses juridictions.

Article 3

Le dépositaire notifie aux Parties contractantes toute notification effectuée conformément à l'article 2.’

Protocol 35 reads as follows:

‘Protocole 35: Sur la mise en oeuvre des règles de l'EEE

Considérant que le présent Accord a pour but de réaliser un Espace Economique Européen homogène, basé sur des règles communes, sans qu'il soit demandé à aucune Partie contractante de transférer des pouvoirs législatifs à aucune institution de l'Espace Economique Européen; et qu'en conséquence, un tel objectif ne peut être atteint que par des procédures nationales;

Article unique

Afin de régler d'éventuels conflits entre les dispositions résultant de la mise en oeuvre des règles de l'EEE et d'autres dispositions législatives, les Etats de l'AELE s'engagent à introduire, si nécessaire, dans leur législation une règle aux termes de laquelle les règles de l'EEE prévalent dans ces cas.’

IV — Summary of the Commission's request

The Commission observes that it renegotiated the agreement in a spirit of respect for the Court's Opinion and a desire for maximum homogeneity. The immediate effect of Opinion 1/91 was to make it necessary to abandon the idea of creating an EEA Court and to contemplate the creation of an EFTA Court. The new provisions are grouped under four headings: homogeneity of interpretation of the provisions of the agreement; the surveillance procedure; settlement of disputes; competition.

As far as the first heading is concerned, the Commission emphasizes the importance which it attaches to homogeneity, that is to say, achieving maximum uniformity in the application and interpretation of the agreement and of the provisions of Community law the substance of which are reproduced in the agreement. That objective is now clearly expressed in the preamble to the agreement in a new recital and in the new Article 105(1), which additionally provides for a procedure to be followed where the case-law of the Court of Justice evolves or where the case-law of the EFTA Court and that of the Court of Justice diverge.

As for the Court's argument that homogeneity could not be secured under Article 6 of the agreement, the Commission states that the ideal solution would have been for the EFTA countries to accept as of now future rulings of the Court of Justice and for Article 6 to be amended accordingly. As that proved totally unacceptable to the EFTA countries, the new Article 105 provides for the ‘reception’ of new rulings of the Court of Justice by means of measures taken by the Joint Committee, which will accordingly become part of the rules applying to the whole of the EEA. An Agreed Minute by the Contracting Parties stipulates that in no case may Joint Committee decisions taken pursuant to that provision affect rulings of the Court of Justice. The Commission also states that this will be confirmed by a declaration to be entered in the Council minutes which will precede the conclusion of the agreement.

The new Article 106 does not include paragraph 1 of the former Article 104 and simply establishes a procedure for exchanging information between the Court of Justice, the EFTA Court and the courts of last instance in the EFTA countries.

Lastly, the new Article 107 and the new Protocol 34 now refer to ‘decisions’ of the Court, which are therefore binding on the EFTA countries.

As regards the second heading, the Commission points out that since no EEA Court is to be created, it is necessary for an EFTA court to be set up in order for the EFTA countries to have a surveillance procedure similar to that which exists in the Community and for undertakings to enjoy the same judicial safeguards in the sphere of competition.

Turning to the third heading, the Commission stresses that the new Article 111 introduces a procedure intended to take into account both Opinion 1/91 of the Court and the need for a procedure for settling disputes. It points out that if there is no EEA Court having jurisdiction and if the interpretation of provisions of the agreement which are in substance identical to those of Community law may not be entrusted to any authority other than the Court of Justice, it is necessary to make provision for a procedure for settling disputes in view of the scope of the agreement.

That procedure should be conducted as far as possible within the Joint Committee by political agreement between the Contracting Parties. Where no such agreement can be reached, the new Article 111 makes a distinction between conflicts arising from a provision of the agreement which is identical in substance to the corresponding provisions of Community law and conflicts arising from safeguard or rebalancing measures.

If the dispute concerns a provision which is identical in substance to the corresponding provisions of Community law, the Contracting Parties concerned may decide to ask the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the matter at issue. If so, although this is not set down in the agreement, it has been agreed that the Commission will bring the matter before the Court and request an Opinion under Article 228 of the EEC Treaty. If, after a certain period, the Joint Committee has not reached an agreement, the Contracting Party which considers itself to be the injured party may adopt either a safeguard measure or a measure suspending the agreement.

If the dispute concerns a safeguard clause [new Article 111(3) or Article 112] or a rebalancing measure (Article 114), the scope and duration of the safeguard measure or the proportionality of the rebalancing measure may be referred to arbitration by any Contracting Party. The arbitration award will be binding on the parties to the dispute, but it is clearly and expressly stipulated that no question of interpretation of the agreement may be referred to arbitration. The arbitrators must confine themselves to the facts and may not arbitrate on points of law. Protocol 33 lays down the arbitration procedures. The Commission considers that, as a result, the arbitration complies with paragraphs 40 and 41 of Opinion 1/91.

With regard to the fourth heading, the Commission states that the new Article 56 should be read in the light of Articles 53 and 54 of the agreement. The application of that new provision in conjunction with Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty results, according to the Commission, in a situation in which:

The Community has jurisdiction:

in cases of agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices:
- for all ‘pure’ cases, obviously, that is where Article 85 alone is applicable, since Article 53 comes into play only where trade between Contracting Parties is affected, i. e. between the Community and the EFTA countries;
- for ‘mixed cases’, that is cases where there is a restriction of competition and where trade is affected not only between Member States but also between Contracting Parties, i. e. between the Community and the EFTA States (and where therefore the EFTA Surveillance Authority could in principle also claim jurisdiction on the basis of Article 53 of the Agreement).
In such cases the Commission will decide on the basis of Community competition rules supplemented by the rules of the EEA and its decisions will be enforceable throughout the entire European Economic Area. Sole jurisdiction is conferred on the Commission for mixed cases as a result of Article 56(l)(c), which stipulates that the Commission will decide on all ‘mixed’ cases if trade between Member States is affected;
- for a specific type of ‘mixed case’, namely cases where trade is affected only between one Member State and one or more EFTA States.
On the basis of existing rules under Community law, the Commission could not deal with such a case (the criteria of Article 85 would not be fulfilled).
The competent body for deciding upon these cases in the EEA context now derives from Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, which supposes that trade
between Contracting Parties is affected and therefore covers the above situation.
This entirely new power will be exercised by the Commission where the turnover of the undertakings concerned in the territory of the EFTA States is less than 33% of their total turnover in the European Economic Area. This results from Article 56(1 )(b) of the EEA Agreement.
In cases of abuse of a dominant position:
- the Community clearly has jurisdiction for what concerns it internally on the basis of Article 86 alone and the reasoning set out under the first indent of point (i) above;
- it also has jurisdiction for a specific form of ‘pure’ cases (because the EFTA Surveillance Authority could not claim to handle these cases), namely where the dominant position exists solely in the Community, but the abuse affects trade not only between Member States but also between Contracting Parties. It is Article 54 of the Agreement which enables the Commission to take into account also the effects of such abuse in the territory of the EFTA countries;
- for ‘mixed’ cases, that is cases where a dominant position exists both in the Community and in the territory of the EFTA countries and the abuse affects both trade between Member States and trade between Contracting Parties.
In these cases the Commission will act on the basis of the rules of the EEC Treaty supplemented by Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. This exclusive Community jurisdiction derives from Article 56(2) in conjunction with paragraph 1(c) of the same Article.

Under the agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will have jurisdiction:

for agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices:
1. for all ‘pure’ EFTA cases, that is where only trade between EFTA countries is affected;
2. for ‘mixed’ cases where trade between the Member States of the Community is not affected but where trade between a Member State and one or more EFTA countries is affected, provided, however, that the turnover of the undertakings concerned in the territory of the EFTA States equals 33% or more of their total turnover in the European Economic Area;
3. for ‘de minimis’ cases in the Community. These are ‘mixed’ cases where trade between Member
States is affected and therefore in principle the Community has jurisdiction but where the effects in the Community are so negligible that they fall into the category of agreements of minor importance which, in accordance with the Commission notice of 3 September 1986, do not fall under Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty as interpreted by the Court.⁽³⁾ These agreements could, however, have an appreciable impact in the territory of the EFTA countries. It was therefore consistent that these de facto‘pure’ EFTA cases should be dealt with by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. The undertakings concerned would not be liable to have fines imposed on them for the effects of such agreements in the Community, given that the EFTA Surveillance Authority must adopt and apply the Community ‘acquis’ and that the abovementioned Commission notice clearly stipulates that fines cannot be imposed as a result of such agreements;
in cases of abuse of a dominant position:
- for ‘pure’ cases, that is where there is a dominant position only within EFTA territory or a substantial part of it and the abuse affects only trade between EFTA countries;
- for a specific form of ‘pure’ cases (so-called because the Commission would not in any case have jurisdiction), namely cases where a dominant position exists in EFTA but its abuse affects trade between Contracting Parties.
The Commission goes on to state that the new Article 56 does not give rise to any transfer of powers to the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court. Lastly, it emphasizes that the new Article 64 enables Contracting Parties which consider that a Contracting Party has not complied with the rules on State aids first to take interim measures and then definitive measures to offset the effects of the infringement. Such measures are not subject to arbitration.

V — Summary of the European Parliament's observations

For the Parliament it is a matter of regret that the Commission referred only a partial aspect — albeit an important one — of the institutional machinery of the EEA to the Court of Justice. It takes the view that the Court should have been asked to consider the institutional machinery as a whole and, more specifically, the Parliament's rôle in the decision-making procedure. The Parliament considers that the powers which the agreement confer on it are at odds with the democratic principle set out in the preamble.

As far as the compatibility with the EEC Treaty of the revised system of judicial supervision is concerned, the Parliament observes that the compromise reached contains such shortcomings as to make an interpretation complying with the Treaty seem extremely difficult. It is unsatisfactory to entrust the Joint Committee with the interpretation of judgments of the Court and of the EFTA courts. Moreover, the terms of Article 105 and the proposed minute thereon are imprecise. The wording of Article 105 and the reference to Article 111 afford no guarantee that the Court of Justice alone will have jurisdiction to interpret Community law. Article 111 docs not contain sufficient safeguards to obviate a different interpretation and leaves it to the discretion of the Joint Committee whether or not to bring a matter before the Court of Justice.

In that connection, the Parliament expresses reservations about the fact that the procedure whereby a request for the settlement of a dispute may be referred to the Court of Justice does not appear in the agreement itself. On the contrary, it is stipulated in a provision adopted in an unspecified context that such requests are to be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 228 of the EEC Treaty. Lastly, the Parliament observes that the procedures are so complicated and the demarcation lines so vaguely drawn that the renegotiated texts should be revised, simply from the point of view of legal certainty and the difficulties in determining the law applicable to a given situation.

Opinion of the Court

I

1 In this Opinion the Court will confine itself, in accordance with the Commission's request, to the question whether the provisions which have been renegotiated following its Opinion of 14 December 1991 are compatible with the EEC Treaty.

II

2 One of the objectives of the agreement, in common with the version considered in that Opinion (referred to below as ‘the former version’), is that of ensuring the homogeneous interpretation and application of the law in the EEA. That objective, set out in the penultimate recital in the preamble to the agreement and in Article 1, is to be achieved by incorporating in the law governing the EEA provisions that are textually identical to the corresponding provisions of Community law and by means of the new provisions governing the settlement of disputes.

3 The new provisions of the agreement provide for the following mechanisms.

4 Article 108(2) provides that the EFTA States are to establish a court to be known as ‘the EFTA Court’. Under a separate agreement to be concluded between the EFTA States, the EFTA Court is to be given jurisdiction, inter alia, to entertain actions concerning the surveillance procedure with regard to the EFTA States and appeals against decisions taken by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the competition field and to settle disputes between two or more EFTA States.

5 According to Article 6, which has not been amended, the provisions of the agreement are, in their implementation and application, to be interpreted in conformity with rulings of the Court of Justice given prior to the date of signature of the agreement which relate to the corresponding provisions of the EEC Treaty, the ECSC Treaty and measures of Community secondary legislation.

6 In order to achieve the objective of reaching the most uniform interpretation possible of the provisions of the agreement and of the corresponding provisions of Community law, Article 105(2) of the agreement provides that the Joint Committee is to keep the development of the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the EFTA Court under constant review. The Joint Committee is to act so as to preserve the homogeneous interpretation of the agreement. According to a ‘procès-verbal agréé ad article 105’, decisions taken by the Joint Committee under that article are not to affect the case-law of the Court of Justice.

7 Article 105(3) provides that the procedure laid down in Article 111 may be applied if, within two months after a difference between the case-law of the two courts has been brought before it, the Joint Committee has not succeeded in preserving the homogeneous interpretation of the agreement.

8 Article 111 makes provision for a procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the agreement. According to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 111, the Community or an EFTA State may bring any such matter in dispute before the Joint Committee, which may settle it.

9 Under Article 111(3), if the dispute is about the interpretation of provisions of the agreement which are identical in substance to corresponding rules of Community law and it has not been settled within three months after it has been brought before the Joint Committee, the Contracting Parties involved in the dispute may agree to request the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the interpretation of the relevant rules.

10 Article 111(4) lays down the circumstances in which Contracting Parties may submit their disputes to arbitration. The dispute must concern the scope or duration of safeguard measures or the proportionality of rebalancing measures and the Joint Committee must have failed to resolve it within a period of three months from the date when the matter was brought before it. Article 111(4) further states that the arbitration is to be carried out in accordance with the procedures laid down in Protocol 33; no question of interpretation of provisions of the agreement which are identical in substance to corresponding rules of Community law may be dealt with in such procedures; and the arbitration award is binding on the parties to the dispute.

11 Lastly, Protocol 34, to which Article 107 of the agreement refers, contains provisions under which the EFTA States may authorize their courts to request the Court of Justice to decide on the interpretation of a provision of the agreement which is identical in substance to a provision of Community law.

III

12 By comparison with the former version of the agreement, the new provisions on the system for the settlement of disputes differ essentially in the following respects.

13 First, the agreement no longer sets up an EEA Court. The EFTA Court will have jurisdiction only within the framework of EFTA and will have no personal or functional links with the Court of Justice.

14 Secondly, the agreement provides for two procedures, the first being designed to preserve the homogeneous interpretation of the agreement, the other being concerned with the settlement of disputes between Contracting Parties. In the course of that dispute-settlement procedure, the Court of Justice may be asked to give a ruling on the interpretation of the relevant rules.

15 Thirdly, under Article 107 and Protocol 34, the EFTA States may authorize their courts to ask the Court of Justice to give a decision and not, as the former version of the agreement had it, to ‘express itself’ on the interpretation of a provision of the agreement.

16 Fourthly, the agreement no longer contains any provision requiring the Court of Justice to pay due account to decisions of other courts.

IV

17 In its Opinion of 14 December 1991 the Court held that the divergences between the aims and context of the agreement and those of Community law stood in the way of the achievement of the objective of homogeneity in the interpretation and application of the law in the EEA. It was in the light of that contradiction that the Court held that the proposed system of courts was liable to undermine the autonomy of the Community legal order in pursuing its own particular objectives.

18 Since these divergences remain, the question is whether the new provisions of the agreement replacing those which the Court regarded as incompatible with the autonomy of the Community legal order are liable to raise similar objections.

19 In that context, it is to be noted that the agreement no longer provides for the creation of an EEA Court, but proposes that an EFTA Court be established by a separate agreement between the EFTA States. Contrary to what was proposed in the case of the EEA Court, the EFTA Court will not hear disputes between Contracting Parties and will exercise its jurisdiction only within EFTA.

20 It therefore remains to be considered whether the procedures provided for in Articles 105 and 111 of the agreement for the settlement of disputes are compatible with the EEC Treaty and, in particular, with Article 164 thereof.

21 In order to achieve the most uniform interpretation possible of the provisions of the agreement and those of Community law whose substance is incorporated in the agreement, Article 105 of the agreement empowers the Joint Committee to keep under constant review the development of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the EFTA Court and to act so as to preserve the homogeneous interpretation of the agreement.

22 If that article were to be interpreted as empowering the Joint Committee to disregard the binding nature of decisions of the Court of Justice within the Community legal order, the vesting of such a power in the Joint Committee would adversely affect the autonomy of the Community legal order, respect for which must be assured by the Court pursuant to Article 164 of the EEC Treaty, and would therefore be incompatible with the Treaty.

23 However, according to the ‘procès-verbal agréé ad article 105’, decisions taken by the Joint Committee under that article are not to affect the case-law of the Court of Justice.

24 That principle constitutes an essential safeguard which is indispensable for the autonomy of the Community legal order.

25 Consequently, the power which Article 105 confers on the Joint Committee for the purposes of preserving the homogeneous interpretation of the agreement is compatible with the EEC Treaty only if that principle is laid down in a form binding on the Contracting Parties.

26 Under Article 111, the Joint Committee is empowered to settle any dispute brought before it by the Community or an EFTA State on the interpretation or application of the agreement, including, pursuant to Article 105(3), disputes relating to a difference in case-law which the Committee has been unable to settle under the procedure laid down in Article 105.

27 The fact that such a power is conferred on the Joint Committee raises once again the problem mentioned in paragraph 22 of this Opinion.

28 In that regard, however, it is to be noted that Article 105(3) establishes a link between the procedure provided for in that article and that provided for in Article 111 of the agreement, and that, because of that link, those two provisions must be interpreted systematically and consistently. Such an interpretation necessarily implies that the principle set out in the ‘procès-verbal agréé ad article 105’ will also apply where the Joint Committee tries to settle a dispute in accordance with Article 111 by finding a solution acceptable to the Contracting Parties.

29 It follows that the powers conferred on the Joint Committee by Article 111 do not call in question the binding nature of the Court's case-law or the autonomy of the Community legal order, since it has been established that the principle set out in the ‘procès-verbal agréé ad article 105’ is binding on the Contracting Parties.

30 The interpretation according to which the Joint Committee is bound to comply with the aforementioned principle in the context of Article 111 is the only interpretation that is consistent with the jurisdiction to interpret the relevant rules conferred on the Court of Justice by Article 111(3).

31 The question then arises as to whether it is compatible with the Treaty to confer that jurisdiction on the Court of Justice.

32 The powers conferred on the Court by the Treaty may be modified pursuant only to the procedure provided for in Article 236 of the Treaty. However, an international agreement concluded by the Community may confer new powers on the Court, provided that in so doing it does not change the nature of the function of the Court as conceived in the EEC Treaty.

33 It was in that context that the Opinion of 14 December 1991 accepted that an international agreement concluded by the Community might confer on the Court jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of such an agreement, provided that the Court's decisions have binding effects. The function of the Court as conceived in the EEC Treaty is that of a court whose decisions are binding.

34 Admittedly, the aim of requesting a ruling from the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 111(3) of the agreement is not to entrust the Court with the settlement of the dispute, which continues to be the responsibility of the Joint Committee. Nevertheless, the interpretation to be given by the Court of Justice is binding, as is clear from the very wording of the two language versions of the agreement submitted to the Court, which use the French expression ‘se prononcer’ and the English ‘give a ruling’.

35 It follows that, if the Court is called upon to give a ruling pursuant to Article 111(3) of the agreement, the Contracting Parties and the Joint Committee alike will be bound by the Court's interpretation of the rules at issue. Consequently, the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by that provision for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of the agreement at the request of the Contracting Parties in dispute is compatible with the EEC Treaty.

36 As for the arbitration procedures, it is sufficient to observe that, according to Article 111(4) of the agreement, no question of interpretation of provisions of the agreement which are identical to provisions of Community law may be dealt with by such procedures. It follows that the settlement of disputes by arbitration is not liable adversely to affect the autonomy of the Community legal order.

V

37 As regards the provisions of the agreement under which EFTA States may authorize their courts to request the Court of Justice to decide on the interpretation of a provision of the agreement, it is to be noted that the wording of Article 107 ensures that the answers which the Court of Justice may be called upon to give will be binding. Consequently, that mechanism satisfies the requirements set out in the Opinion of 14 December 1991 and is therefore compatible with Community law.

VI

38 Finally, it is necessaiy to assess the compatibility with the EEC Treaty of the rules contained in Article 56 of the agreement with regard to the sharing of responsibilities in the competition field between the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Commission of the European Communities.

39 It follows from the Court's case-law (judgment in Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263 (‘the ERTA case’), judgment in Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer [1976] ECR 1279 and Opinion 1/76 [1977] ECR 741, paragraph 3) that the Community's authority to enter into international agreements arises not only from an express attribution by the Treaty, but also from other provisions of the Treaty and measures taken pursuant to those provisions by the Community institutions.

40 Consequently, the Community is empowered, under the competition rules in the EEC Treaty and measures implementing those rules, to conclude international agreements in this field.

41 That power necessarily implies that the Community may accept rules made by virtue of an agreement as to the sharing of the respective competences of the Contracting Parties in the field of competition, provided that those rules do not change the nature of the powers of the Community and of its institutions as conceived in the Treaty.

42 It follows that Article 56 of the agreement is compatible with the EEC Treaty.

In conclusion,

THE COURT gives the following opinion:

The following are compatible with the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community:

The provisions of the agreement which deal with the settlement of disputes, as long as the principle that decisions taken by the Joint Committee are not to affect the case-law of the Court of Justice is laid down in a form binding on the Contracting Parties;
Article 56 of the agreement, dealing with the sharing of competences in the field of competition.

Due

President

Joliet

President of the Chamber

Schockweiler

President of the Chamber

Grévisse

President of the Chamber

Kapteyn

President of the Chamber

Mancini

Judges

Moitinho de Almeida

Judges

Rodriguez Iglesias

Judges

Diez de Valasco

Judges

Zuleeg

Judges

Murray

Judges

Edward

Judges

Delivered in open court in Luxemburg on 10 April 1992.

J.-G. Giraud

Registrar