AEG-Telefunken; Official Journal, L 117, P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AEG v COMMISSION manufacturer may impede intra possible, the admission of new forms Community trade, since the Situation of trade, which are regarded a priori may change from one year to as being incapable of satisfying the another in terms of alterations in the specialist trade conditions, exhibits conditions or composition of the characteristics which cannot be market both in the common market reconciled with a correct application as a whole and in the individual of a selective distribution system. national markets. 12. An undertaking on which a fine has 11. A distribution policy motivated by a been imposed under Article 15 of desire both to guarantee a high Regulation No 17 is required to pay profit margin for approved resellers default interest up to the date of and to impede, so far as at all actual payment of the fine. In Case 107/82 ALLGEMEINE ELEKTRICITÄTS-GESELLSCHAFT AEG-TELEPUNKEN AG, Frankfurt am Main, represented by Martin Hirsch and Fritz Oesterle, of the firm of Rechtsanwälte Gleiss, Lutz, Hootz , Hirsch and Partners, Stuttgart, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 34 B Rue Philippe-Il, applicant, v COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Christoph Bail and Götz zur Hauzen , members of its Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Oreste Montako , a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendant, APPLICATION for a declaration that Commission Decision No 82 / 267 / EEC of 6 January 1982 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/28.748 — AEG-Telefunken; Official Journal, L 117, p. 15) is void, 3155 JUDGMENT OF 25. 10. 1983 — CASE 107/82 THE COURT , composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, T . Koopmans , K. Bahlmann, Y. Galmot (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and O . Due , Judges, Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: P. Heim gives the following JUDGMENT Facts and Issues I — Facts and written procedure GmbH (hereinafter referred to as "TFR"), which, since 1 June 1979, has been an independent branch of AEG. TFR manufactures and markets those 1. The AEG-Telefunken Group products. In marketing them it uses the AEG marketing organization — that is, in Germany, the AEG sales offices or branches and, in the other Member The Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft States of the European Economic Com AEG-Telefunken (hereinafter referred to munity, the AEG subsidiaries responsible as "AEG"), a limited liability company for marketing, namely, in France AEG- - incorporated under German law, having Telefunken SA, Clichy, (hereinafter its registered office at Frankfurt am referred to as "ATF") and, in Belgium, Main, is engaged, amongst other things, AEG-Telefunken SA Belge, Brussels, in developing, manufacturing and mar (hereinafter referred to as "ATBG"). keting consumer electronic products (television sets, radios, tape-recorders, record-players and audio-visual equip ment). Those sales offices are controlled by, and receive instructions from, TFR. They supply wholesalers and sometimes even Since 1 January 1970 this sector has retailers if they are large-scale retailers been entrusted to the AEG subsidiary whose turnover is comparable to that of Telefunken Fernseh- und Rundfunk- a wholesaler. 3156 AEG v COMMISSION 2. The AEG-Telefunken selective distri• selective distribution system. In notifying bution system for consumer electronic its selective distribution system to the products Commission, AEG indicated that the system was open to all specialist dealers who satisfied the conditions of the For the implementation in the common standard contract. market of the "five-point" programme involving the marketing of a part of the products entrusted to TFR, AEG notified By letter of 17 May 1976 the Director the Commission on 6 November 1973 of General for Competition informed AEG a system for the selective distribution that he had no objection under Article of Telefunken brand products ("Ver 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty to the use of triebsbindung für Telefunken-Marken the version of the selective distribution waren" — "EG Verpflichtungsschein"). agreement for Telefunken brand pro The system is based on standard ducts notified on 16 March 1976. contracts with selected resellers at the various stages of marketing. Until the end of 1978 it was AEG, acting at the 3. Procedure within the meaning of Article same time on behalf of TFR, which 9 (3) of Regulation No 17 concluded distribution contracts with dealers; since then AEG-Telefunken Konsumgüter Aktiengesellschaft, Frank In the course of time the Commission furt am Main, acting on behalf of and became convinced that the actual for the account of AEG and at the same application by AEG of the distribution time for TFR as a joint contracting system did not correspond to the scheme party, has done so. notified to it. In 1981 AEG introduced a new distri By decision of 29 May 1980 it therefore bution system in Germany, based on so- initiated the procedure laid down by called "partner contracts", but the Article 9 (3) of Regulation No 17. former type of selective distribution contracts continues to exist in the other Member States. After hearing the undertaking concerned in pursuance of Article 19 of Regulation No 17 in conjunction with Regulation According to the wording of the No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 European Community standard-type July 1963 and after receiving the opinion selective distribution contract wholesalers delivered on 28 October 1981 by the are selected who regularly buy the Advisory Committee on Restrictive contract goods for their own account for Practices and Dominant Positions in resale to retailers and undertake to keep pursuance of Article 10 of Regulation a strict record of serial numbers and not No 17, the Commission on 6 January to infringe the provisions of competition 1982 adopted Decision No 82/267/EEC, law; in addition retailers are selected which forms the subject of this case. who satisfy objective conditions as to their technical qualifications, have qualified staff and technically appro priate installations for the sale of 4. The Commission decision of 6 January 1982 consumer electronic products and who also undertake to keep a strict record of serial numbers and not to supply contract Decision No 82/267/EEC is based on goods to dealers not subject to the the view that from the beginning AEG 3157 JUDGMENT OF 25. 10. 1983 — CASE 107/82 intended to apply the selective distri operation of the decision without the bution system in such a way as to pursue applicant's being required to lodge aims incompatible with the Community security. rules on competition, such as the exclusion in principle of certain forms of By order of 6 May 1982 the President of marketing and the maintenance of the Court of Justice ordered that the certain prices. operation of Article 3 of the Com mission's decision of 6 January 1982 According to the decision, those aims (relating to payment of the fine) was to were realized, in the practical application be suspended subject to the maintenance of the system, both by means of discrimi of the security already furnished by AEG nating against certain dealers and by on 17 March 1982 in favour of the influencing directly or indirectly the Commission. prices to be applied by dealers. Upon hearing the report of the Judge- The decision makes it clear that this Rapporteur and the views of the improper use of the selective distribution Advocate General, the Court decided system took place in Germany, France to open the oral procedure without and Belgium. It lists, for each of those any preparatory inquiry. However, it countries, both documents demonstrating requested the parties to supply certain the existence of a general distribution details and the Commission to produce a and price policy and documents relating number of documents in its possession.. to a series of specific cases in which, it states, that general policy was applied. The decision states that by the II — Conclusions of the parties application in practice of its selective distribution system AEG has infringed Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty, The applicant claims that the Court requires AEG to terminate without delay should: the infringement found and imposes on it a fine of one million European currency 1. Declare void the Commission units. Decision of 6 January 1982 (VI/ 28.748 — AEG-Telefunken); J. Written procedure before the Court of 2. Declare that the Commission of the Justice European Communities is required to reimburse to the applicant the costs By application lodged at the Court arising from the proceedings. Registry on 24 March 1982 AEG brought an action for a declaration that the Commission's decision was void. The defendant contends that the Court should: By a further document lodged on the same date AEG applied, in pursuance of 1. Dismiss the application; the fourth paragraph of Article 192 of the EEC Treaty and Article 89 in conjunction with Article 83 et seq. of the 2. Order the applicant to pay the costs, Rules of Procedure, for an order of including those of the proceedings for the Court of Justice suspending the the adoption of an interim measure. 3158 AEG v COMMISSION II — Submissions and argu large-scale inquriy carried out from June ments of the parties 1979 into the selective distribution systems operated by five large under takings, including the applicant, in the A — The criticisms made by AEG field of consumer electronic products relating to the manner in which the reveals that the problems affecting the Commission conducted the inquiry application of such systems in the under Regulation No 17 common market were examined with close attention.