Facts
- Courage Ltd, a brewery, entered into a tenancy agreement with Mr. Crehan, a publican, containing a "tie-in" clause requiring purchase of beer exclusively from Courage.
- Mr. Crehan argued Courage's beer prices were excessively high due to anti-competitive agreements between Courage and other publicans, alleged to violate Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU).
- Mr. Crehan sought damages for alleged overcharges resulting from these anti-competitive practices.
Issues
- Whether individuals who are party to a contract containing anti-competitive clauses prohibited under Article 81 EC can claim damages for resulting losses in national courts.
- Whether entering into such a contract precludes the harmed party from seeking redress for infringements of EU competition law.
- The scope of national courts’ obligations to provide effective remedies for breaches of Article 81 EC.
Decision
- The European Court of Justice held that individuals may claim damages in national courts for losses caused by infringements of Article 81 EC, even if they were party to the infringing agreement.
- Contractual freedom does not extinguish the right to compensation for harm stemming from anti-competitive practices.
- National courts must provide adequate remedies, including damages, to ensure the effectiveness of EU competition law.
Legal Principles
- The effectiveness of Article 81 EC depends on individuals having the right to seek damages for anti-competitive conduct.
- Denying individuals this right would weaken the deterrent effect of competition rules and undermine the internal market's functioning.
- National courts play a central role in enforcing EU competition law by ensuring victims of anti-competitive agreements can obtain redress.
- The right to damages applies regardless of whether the claimant was party to a contract containing the infringing clause.
Conclusion
The judgment in Courage Ltd v Crehan established that individuals harmed by anti-competitive agreements may seek damages in national courts, even if bound by a contract containing such clauses. This ruling enhances private enforcement of EU competition law and prioritizes the protection of market competition over contractual arrangements.