C-86/82

ORDER OF T H E PRESIDENT O F T H E COURT 7 MAY 1982'

Hasselblad (GB) Limited v Commission of the European Communities

Case 86/82 R

Application for the adoption ofinterim measures — Suspension of operation of a decision imposing a fine — Conditions for granting — Lodging of security (EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure, Art. 86 (2))

In Case 86/82 R

HASSELBLAD (GB) LIMITED, London, represented by the firm of Deringer, Tessin, Hermann & Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, and by William T. Stockier, Solicitor, London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Vereins- und Westbank Internationale SA 25 Boulevard Royal, applicant, v

Facts and Issues

1. On 2 December 1981, the bank established in the European Commission adopted a decision (IV / Economic Community instead of 25.757/Hasselblad) under Article 85 (1) payment of the fine. of the EEC Treaty; Article 8 of that decision imposed fines on various under- takings, including the applicant, Hasselblad (GB) Limited, engaged in the production or distribution of 3. By an application registered at the photographic equipment in the Member Court on 10 March 1982, Hasselblad States. The fine imposed on the appli- (GB) Limited brought an action under cant amounted to ECU 165 000 (UKL Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the 93 642 12). In its decision the annulment of the aforesaid Commission Commission alleged that Hasselblad decision. The applicant disputes in (GB) Limited was involved in concerted particular that the facts as outlined by practices in the common market in the Commission justify the conclusions association with Victor Hasselblad which it drew from them in regard to an Aktiebolag and certain sole distributors infringement of the rules of competition. of the latter's products. It is said that It denies the existence of concerted those practices had as their purpose to practices to which it is alleged to have prevent, restrict or inhibit trade in been a party with a view to partitioning products of the Hasselblad brand be- national markets, and it denies having tween the Member States of the Com- exerted any influence on resale prices. It munity. The same decision prohibited the argues that the contested decision is in sole distributorship agreements relating breach of the obligation embodied in to the products in question and the Article 190 of the Treaty to state the selective distribution system operated reasons on which it is based; it also since 1974 by Hasselblad (GB) Limited. criticizes both the definition adopted of Exemption under Article 85 (3) for the the market in the products concerned aforesaid practices and agreements was and the size of the market share refused. attributed to it.

relies in the main action, it seems guarantee, in cases where an undertaking probable that the contested decision will on which a fine has been imposed be annulled or at least amended. It adds decides to appeal. that in view of its financial position it is unable to pay the fine imposed on it or The Commission maintains that the to satisfy the conditions which the applicant has failed to establish that the Commission proposes to attach to any factual and legal conditions justifying the order suspending enforcement. It also grant of an interim measure have been points out that by letter of 20 January satisfied; moreover, the provision of a 1982 it offered to pay the sum of UKL guarantee does not constitute irreparable 10 000 into a current account in the joint damage. Furthermore, the applicant has names of the applicant and the defendant failed to adduce convincing evidence that but that its proposal was rejected by the it was unable to obtain bank guarantees. Commission by letter of 28 January If, however, that really were the case, 1982. It seeks a suspension of there would, according to the enforcement without the imposition of Commission, be a serious risk that the any conditions. fine might not be paid and, in those 5. In its observations, lodged at the circumstances, the interests of the Court Registry on 20 April 1982, the Community and Community taxpayers Commission begins by stating the should take precedence over Hasselblad reasons which have induced it since the (GB) Limited's interest in not end of 1981 to alter its practice in guaranteeing payment of the fine. relation to the payment of fines and to make suspension of enforcement 6. The parties presented oral argument conditional on the provision of a at a hearing on 5 May 1982.

On those grounds,

T H E PRESIDENT,

by way of interim decision,

hereby orders as follows :

1. Enforcement of Article 8 of the Commission's decision of 2 December 1981 (IV/25.757 Hasselblad) is suspended, as far as the applicant is concerned, provided that it produces to the Commission, by 3 C June 1982, a continuing and irrevocable banker's guarantee of payment of the fine given by a bank established in a Member State of the European Community.

2. If that condition is not satisfied by the aforesaid date, this order shall cease to have effect on the same date.