Short Reads

General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers

General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts

General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers

01.11.2017 NL law

On 23 October 2017, the General Court (GC) dismissed an appeal of the Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) against the European Commission's decision to reject its complaint.

CEAHR had complained to the Commission that LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton, Rolex and the Swatch Group (the "luxury brand watchmakers") had engaged in anticompetitive conduct and abused their market power by setting up selective distribution systems for repair services and refusing to supply spare parts to watch repairers that were not part of their authorised repair and maintenance network.

The GC reiterated that selective distribution systems are not considered anticompetitive when they are objectively justified, non-discriminatory and proportionate. Contrary to the appellant's claim, when these conditions are met, there is no need to examine whether selective distribution systems have the effect of "eliminating all competition". In determining whether the selective distribution systems are objectively justified, the Court held, contrary to the view expressed by AG Wahl in the Coty case, that the protection of the brand image alone cannot be a valid justification for the restriction of competition. However, the objective of preserving the quality of the products and ensuring their proper use may justify such a restriction, in which case selective distribution systems are allowed. The Court concluded that the selective distribution systems in place met all the necessary conditions.

The GC also rejected a claim by CEARH that the refusal to supply amounted to an abuse of dominance because the selective distribution systems lacked any objective justification. In order to establish an abuse under Article 102 TFEU, the refusal to supply by a dominant undertaking must (i) not be objectively justified, (ii) be related to goods and services that are indispensable for the requesting person's activity, and (iii) be likely to eliminate all competition. Consequently, the lack of an objective justification is not in itself sufficient ground for finding an abuse under Article 102 TFEU. The GC confirmed the Commission's finding that there was a very low probability of all effective competition being eliminated.

Finally, CEARH claimed that the Commission did not properly appreciate the market power of the luxury watchmakers. The GC dismissed that claim and ruled that since the Commission had held that the watchmaker's conduct did not qualify as an abuse, the degree of market power of the watchmakers was irrelevant.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  3. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  4. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring