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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring