Articles

Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

Dominant firm may refuse to supply retailer after initial delivery

02.12.2021 NL law

The Brussels Court of Appeal has held that a dominant producer firm may have valid reasons to refuse further supplies to a retailer, despite its dominance and despite previous deliveries. The Court of Appeal stressed the freedom for any company, including dominant firms, to choose their trading partners, in particular when there are valid and objective non-discriminatory reasons to refuse further direct supplies and when the retailer has alternative sources of supply.

The Brussels Court of Appeal (the “Court”) ruled on the possibility for a dominant producer to refuse supplying a retailer which it had previously directly supplied. The Court held that a dominant firm may have valid reasons to refuse further supplies despite its dominance and despite previous deliveries. The Court stressed the freedom for any company to choose their trading partners and upheld the possibility for a dominant firm to prefer working with wholesalers, which is a valid and objective non-discriminatory reason to refuse direct supplies to retailers.

A company active in the production and distribution of products for the building sector was considered dominant for a number of products it supplied. It used to apply a three-step distribution system, and in principle only supplied wholesalers. Wholesalers subsequently supplied retailers, who sold to end users. For a short period, the dominant company had made direct supplies to a large retail chain, but quickly stopped these direct supplies. When the retail chain requested further supplies, the dominant producer refused.

The retail chain asked the Court to issue an order for compulsory deliveries, claiming that the refusal to supply was a violation of the rules prohibiting abuse of a dominant position and abuse of a position of economic dependence.

The Court rejected the request. It considered that the three-step distribution system is a generally recognised and valid distribution system, and that the refusal to supply is in line with such a distribution system and is an objective criterion. The Court also considered that this refusal did not affect downstream competition, in particular since the refusing dominant firm itself was not active on the retail market.

The fact that some wholesalers had limited direct sales to end-consumers did not alter the Court’s conclusion, since prohibiting such further resales would potentially violate competition law and those sales were in any event not the core business of the wholesalers, thereby not affecting downstream competition.

As the retail chain had alternative sources of supply (namely supplies from the various wholesalers in the market), the Court considered that the large retail chain was not dependent on the producer. The conditions for a potential abuse of a position of economic dependence were not fulfilled. Finally, the Court held that the refusal to supply was also no act of unfair competition. It considered in that respect the objective reasons for the dominant firm to refuse to supply, and the fact that the possible harm to the retail chain was limited compared to the dominant firm’s interest in a consistent distribution policy.

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of December 2021. Other articles in this newsletter:

Related news

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Foreign Subsidies Regulation crosses the finish line

Short Reads - On 30 June 2022, the European Parliament and the European Council reached agreement on the final text of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Adding to the regulatory burdens, this Regulation creates a notification obligation for companies that receive subsidies from non-EU governments in transactions or public procurement procedures. 

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Take note(s): Qualcomm’s EUR 1 billion dominance abuse fine quashed

Short Reads - The General Court annulled the Commission’s EUR 1 billion fine imposed on Qualcomm for abuse of dominance on the LTE chipsets market. In addition to finding fault with the Commission’s foreclosure analysis of Qualcomm’s alleged exclusivity payments, the General Court found that the Commission’s procedural irregularities alone would have sufficed to set the Commission’s decision aside.

Read more