Grundig / Consten decision
The Grundig / Consten decision of the European Court of Justice is a decision in the field of European competition law .
facts
The German company Grundig signed a contract with the French company Consten, according to which Consten became the sole authorized dealer for Grundig products in France . All other Grundig dealers were prohibited from selling Grundig products in France; in return, Consten was not allowed to sell any products that compete with Grundig products or to sell Grundig products outside of France. By means of an additional agreement, Consten also received the trademark rights to the "Grundig" brand.
After two companies launched parallel imports of Grundig products from Germany in France, Consten asserted injunctive relief against these companies and sued a French court for injunctive relief. The two companies complained to the European Commission and alleged a breach of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty . The Commission then declared the contract between Grundig and Consten to be null and void, as it violated European competition law. Grundig and Consten appealed against this with their action for annulment before the European Court of Justice.
decision
The European Court of Justice essentially upheld the Commission's decision and only overturned it insofar as the entire contract (and not just the agreements specifically contested) was declared null and void.
According to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, agreements between undertakings which restrict the free movement of goods within the EEC with the aim of restricting competition are ineffective. According to the decision of the European Court of Justice, this article always applies if five criteria are met:
- It must be an agreement between two companies.
- The agreement must be part of a contract or good practice.
- The agreement must have a restrictive effect on competition or be aimed at this goal.
- The agreement must have a significant impact on competition or the free movement of goods.
- The restriction of competition must not be justified in individual cases (according to Art. 85 Para. 3 of the EEC Treaty)
Such agreements that do not have a direct restrictive effect on competition, but ultimately lead to a restriction of competition, can also fall under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty.
An agreement through which an external company is designated as the sole authorized dealer for its own products does not in itself have a restrictive effect on competition. In the specific case, the interaction of various provisions of the contract ultimately led to an inadmissible restriction of competition. Due to the provisions that other authorized dealers were not allowed to sell their products in France, Consten benefited from a kind of "territorial protection" which made it completely impossible for other companies to compete with Consten and sell Grundig products in France. By simultaneously transferring the trademark rights, Consten was also able to take action against parallel imports that were not authorized by Grundig by basing them on a trademark infringement. As a result, Consten was able to charge prices that were not exposed to any real competition.
As a result, Grundig would have had to either abandon the designation of Constens as the sole authorized dealer within France or the restrictions on parallel imports in order to comply with competition law.
literature
- Günther Hönn: Exam revision course competition and antitrust law . Verlag CF Müller, Heidelberg 2009, ISBN 3811497316 , Rn 268