Grounds
|
|
The facts of the case
|
Sagens faktiske omstaendigheder
|
|
1 The applicant, Van Megen Sports Group BV (whose name at the material time was Van Megen Tennis BV), a company incorporated under Netherlands law and established in Eindhoven (the Netherlands), is the exclusive distributor in the Netherlands of Tretorn Sports Ltd (hereinafter `Tretorn'), a company incorporated under Irish law. Tretorn is a subsidiary of Tretorn AB, a company incorporated under Swedish law, which manufactures tennis balls.
|
1 Sagsoegeren, Van Megen Sports Group BV (der paa det relevante tidspunkt hed Van Megen Tennis BV), der er et nederlandsk selskab hjemmehoerende i Eindhoven (Nederlandene), er eneforhandler i Nederlandene for det irske selskab Tretorn Sport Ltd (herefter »Tretorn«). Tretorn er et datterselskab af den svenske industrivirksomhed Tretorn AB, der fremstiller tennisbolde.
|
|
The administrative procedure before the Commission
|
Den administrative procedure ved Kommissionen
|
|
2 On 14 May 1993 the Commission, after carrying out an investigation at Tretorn's premises in July 1989, decided to initiate proceedings for infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty; it subsequently sent a statement of objections to the applicant.
|
2 Den 14. maj 1993 besluttede Kommissionen efter at have foretaget en kontrolundersoegelse hos Tretorn i juli 1989 at indlede en procedure for overtraedelse af EF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, og den fremsendte derefter en meddelelse om klagepunkter til sagsoegeren.
|
|
3 On 13 August 1993 the applicant submitted written observations to the Commission on the statement of objections; it made oral observations at the hearing which took place on 16 November 1993.
|
3 Den 13. august 1993 fremsendte sagsoegeren til Kommissionen skriftlige bemaerkninger til meddelelsen om klagepunkter, og ved hoeringen, der blev afholdt den 16. november 1993, fremsatte selskabet sine mundtlige bemaerkninger.
|
|
The contested decision
|
Den anfaegtede beslutning
|
|
4 Following the administrative procedure the Commission adopted Decision 94/987/EC of 21 December 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/32.948 - IV/34.590: Tretorn and others) (OJ 1994 L 378, p. 45, hereinafter `the Decision' or `the contested decision').
|
4 Som afslutning paa den administrative procedure vedtog Kommissionen beslutning 94/987/EF af 21. december 1994 om en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 (IV/32.948 og IV/34.590 - Tretorn m.fl.) (EFT L 378, s. 45, herefter »beslutningen« eller »den anfaegtede beslutning«).
|
|
The Decision reads as follows: `Article 1
|
Denne beslutning er affattet saaledes:
|
|
Tretorn Sport Ltd and Tretorn AB have infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty by applying a general export ban to their distributors of tennis balls, implemented through monitoring measures and sanctions, through the reporting and investigation of parallel imports of tennis balls, the marking of tennis balls, and the suspension of supplies in order to prevent parallel imports and exports of tennis balls.
|
»Artikel 1
|
|
Formula Sport International Ltd has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in the implementation in the United Kingdom of the export ban and suspension of supplies in order to enforce Tretorn Sport Ltd's policy of preventing parallel imports and exports of tennis balls.
|
Tretorn Sport Ltd og Tretorn AB har overtraadt EF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, idet de med henblik paa at hindre parallelimport og paralleleksport af tennisbolde har paalagt deres forhandlere af tennisbolde et generelt eksportforbud, som er blevet haandhaevet ved hjaelp af kontrolforanstaltninger og sanktioner, indberetning og undersoegelse af tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde samt maerkning af tennisbolde og leveringsstop.
|
|
Fabra SPA has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in the implementation in Italy of the export ban and suspension of supplies through the reporting and investigation of parallel imports of tennis balls, the marking of tennis balls and the suspension of supplies in order to enforce Tretorn Sport Ltd's policy of preventing parallel imports and exports of tennis balls.
|
Formula Sport International Ltd har overtraadt artikel 85, stk. 1, ved i Det Forenede Kongerige at have deltaget i gennemfoerelsen af eksportforbuddet og leveringsstoppet med henblik paa at haandhaeve Tretorn Sport Ltd's politik, der tilsigtede at hindre parallelimport og paralleleksport af tennisbolde.
|
|
Tenimport SA has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in the export ban and the suspension of supplies, through the reporting of parallel imports to Tretorn with the effect that Tretorn and its Italian exclusive distributor took measures with a view to eliminating those imports.
|
Fabra SpA har overtraadt artikel 85, stk. 1, ved i Italien at have deltaget i gennemfoerelsen af eksportforbuddet og leveringsstoppet gennem indberetninger og undersoegelser af tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde, maerkning af tennisbolde og leveringsstop med henblik paa at haandhaeve Tretorn sport Ltd's politik, der tilsigtede at hindre parallelimport og paralleleksport af tennisbolde.
|
|
Zuercher AG has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in the implementation in Switzerland of the export ban and suspension of supplies, through the reporting and investigation of parallel imports of tennis balls and the marking of tennis balls in order to enforce Tretorn Sport Ltd's policy of preventing parallel imports and exports of tennis balls.
|
Tenimport SA har overtraadt artikel 85, stk. 1, ved at have deltaget i eksportforbuddet og leveringsstoppet gennem indberetning af tilfaelde af parallelimport til Tretorn, hvilket medfoerte, at Tretorn og Tretorn's italienske eneforhandler traf foranstaltninger til at hindre denne import.
|
|
Van Megen Tennis BV has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in the implementation in the Netherlands of the reporting and investigation of parallel imports in order to enforce Tretorn Sport Ltd's policy of preventing parallel imports and exports of tennis balls.
|
Zuercher AG har overtraadt artikel 85, stk. 1, ved i Schweiz at have deltaget i gennemfoerelsen af eksportforbuddet og leveringsstoppet gennem indberetninger og undersoegelser af tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde og maerkning af tennisbolde med henblik paa at haandhaeve Tretorn Sport Ltd's politik, der tilsigtede at hindre parallelimport og paralleleksport af tennisbolde.
|
|
Article 2
|
Van Megen Tennis BV har overtraadt artikel 85, stk. 1, ved i Nederlandene at have deltaget i indberetningen og undersoegelsen af tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde med henblik paa at haandhaeve Tretorn Sport Ltd's politik, der tilsigtede at hindre parallelimport og paralleleksport af tennisbolde.
|
|
A fine of ECU 600 000 is hereby imposed on Tretorn Sport Limited and Tretorn AB jointly and severally and fines of ECU 10 000 each on Formula Sport International Ltd; on Fabra SPA; on Zuercher AG; and on Van Megen Tennis BV, in respect of the infringements referred to in Article 1.
|
Artikel 2
|
|
...
|
Tretorn Sport Ltd og Tretorn AB paalaegges solidarisk en boede paa 600 000 ECU, og Formula Sport International Ltd, Fabra SpA, Zuercher AG og Van Megen Tennis BV paalaegges hver en boede paa 10 000 ECU for de i artikel 1 omhandlede overtraedelser.
|
|
Article 3
|
...
|
|
Tretorn Sport Ltd, Tretorn AB, Fabra SPA, Tenimport SA, Zuercher AG and Van Megen Tennis BV shall, in so far as they have not already done so, terminate the infringements referred to in Article 1. They shall refrain from adopting any other measures having equivalent effect.'
|
Artikel 3
|
|
5 In the Decision the Commission found that since 1987 at least Tretorn had, in concertation with its exclusive distributors, introduced an export ban in its exclusive distribution system and had set up a series of mechanisms aimed at implementing and reinforcing that ban. Those mechanisms consisted of systematic reporting and investigation of instances of parallel imports, marking of products to identify the origin of parallel imports, and suspension of supplies to specific markets to prevent actual or potential parallel imports (points 13 and 14 of the Decision).
|
Tretorn Sport Ltd, Tretorn AB, Fabra SpA, Tenimport SA, Zuercher AG og Van Megen Tennis BV bringer, hvis det ikke allerede er sket, de i artikel 1 omhandlede overtraedelser til ophoer. De afstaar fra at traeffe nogen form for foranstaltninger med tilsvarende virkning.«
|
|
6 With respect to the reporting and investigating of parallel imports, the Commission found that Tretorn itself or Tretorn's distribution network had reported parallel imports wherever there was evidence of such imports (point 22 of the Decision). A fax from Tretorn to Tretorn AB of 16 July 1987 showed that in July 1987 the applicant had informed Tretorn that Tretorn tennis balls were `again turning up' in the Netherlands. Tretorn asked the applicant to forward the code number to it to allow it to find out `which country [had] shipped' (point 24). In an internal Tretorn memorandum of 20 June 1988 it was stated that the applicant had found parallel imports from two sources and hoped to obtain the date codes (point 25).
|
5 Kommissionen har i betragtningerne til beslutningen fastslaaet, at Tretorn i hvert fald siden 1987 i samarbejde med sine eneforhandlere har gennemfoert et generelt eksportforbud som led i sit eneforhandlingssystem og anvendt en raekke mekanismer beregnet til at haandhaeve og styrke dette forbud. Disse mekanismer har bestaaet af en systematisk indberetning og undersoegelse af tilfaelde af parallelimport, maerkning af produkter med henblik paa identifikation af parallelimporterede varers oprindelse og afbrydelse af leverancer til bestemte markeder for at hindre faktisk eller potentiel parallelimport (13. og 14. betragtning til beslutningen).
|
|
7 With respect to the marking of products, the Commission found that the evidence in its possession indicated that Tretorn marked its tennis balls with date codes which would allow the origin of parallel imports to be traced. Numerous references to those codes and their use could be found in Tretorn's correspondence (point 35 of the Decision).
|
6 Hvad angaar indberetning og undersoegelse af tilfaelde af parallelimport har Kommissionen fastslaaet, at Tretorn selv eller Tretorn's forhandlere indberettede tilfaelde af parallelimport, naar de fandt beviser herfor (22. betragtning til beslutningen). Det fremgaar af en telefax fra Tretorn til Tretorn AB af 16. juli 1987, at sagsoegeren i juli 1987 meddelte Tretorn, at der »igen dukkede Tretorn-bolde op« i Nederlandene. Tretorn bad sagsoegeren om at sende kodenummeret til Tretorn, saaledes at selskabet kunne finde ud af, »hvilket land de var afsendt fra« (24. betragtning). I et internt Tretorn-notat af 20. juni 1988 anfoeres det, at Van Megen havde fundet parallelimporterede bolde fra to forskellige kilder, og at man haabede at modtage datokoderne (25. betragtning).
|
|
8 During the procedure before the Commission, the applicant explained that its object in reporting date codes to Tretorn was not to prevent parallel imports but to check whether Tretorn was not supplying directly in its territory, and stated that it itself supplied companies which it knew to be parallel exporters. The Commission considered that `even if the interpretation given by Van Megen were correct, the fact remain[ed] that the information [had been] given in the context of a ban on parallel exports of which Van Megen was well aware and it [had] actively participated in identifying the source of the parallel imports with a view to suppressing it ...' (point 70 of the Decision).
|
7 Hvad angaar maerkning af produkter er Kommissionen i besiddelse af beviser for, at Tretorn maerkede sine bolde med datokoder, som gjorde det muligt at spore en parallelimports oprindelse. Tretorn's korrespondance indeholder adskillige henvisninger til disse koder og deres anvendelse (35. betragtning).
|
|
9 As to the imposition of fines on Tretorn's distributors, the Commission stated (point 78 of the Decision):
|
8 Under proceduren ved Kommissionen har sagsoegeren forklaret, at selskabets formaal med indberetningen af datokoder til Tretorn ikke var at hindre parallelimport, men at undersoege, om Tretorn ikke selv leverede direkte til sagsoegerens omraade, idet sagsoegeren selv leverede til selskaber, som man vidste var paralleleksportoerer. Det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at »selv hvis det antages, at Van Megen's fortolkning er korrekt, forholder det sig stadig saaledes, at oplysningerne blev angivet i tilknytning til et forbud mod paralleleksport, som Van Megen var velvidende om, og selskabet deltog aktivt i identifikationen af kilden til parallelimporten med henblik paa at eliminere den ...« (70. betragtning).
|
|
`In determining whether to impose fines and at what level the Commission has taken into account the fact that some of Tretorn's distributors have taken a particularly active part in preventing parallel imports; but also that such participation was in other cases of a limited nature and has to be set in the context of Tretorn's general policy of prohibiting any export of its products. Moreover, the part played by Tenimport was of a less substantial nature and it is therefore justified in refraining from imposing a fine on that undertaking.'
|
9 Kommissionen har hvad angaar boeden til Tretorn's forhandlere anfoert foelgende (78. betragtning):
|
|
10 Finally, according to point 77 of the contested decision, `during the course of the procedure, Tenimport ... confirm[ed] the existence of an unwritten but actual prohibition on exports. It considered that the recent cancellation of its distribution agreement with Tretorn could only be understood as meaning that Tenimport had not complied with that prohibition.'
|
»Ved beslutningen om, hvorvidt der skulle idoemmes boeder og, i bekraeftende fald, i hvilken stoerrelsesorden, har Kommissionen taget hensyn til, at nogle af Tretorn's forhandlere har taget saerdeles aktiv del i bestraebelserne paa at hindre parallelimport, men den har ogsaa taget hensyn til, at denne deltagelse i andre tilfaelde har vaeret mere begraenset og skal ses i sammenhaeng med Tretorn's generelle politik bestaaende i et forbud mod enhver eksport af Tretorn's produkter. I oevrigt er den rolle, som Tenimport spillede, mindre vaesentlig, og det er derfor berettiget at undlade at paalaegge denne virksomhed en boede.«
|
|
Procedure
|
10 Endelig fremgaar det af den anfaegtede beslutnings 77. betragtning, at »Tenimport ... bekraeftede under hoeringen, at der eksisterede et uskrevet, men dog reelt eksportforbud. Tenimport var af den opfattelse, at den nylige afbrydelse af selskabets forhandlingsaftale med Tretorn kun kunne forklares som en foelge af den omstaendighed, at Tenimport ikke overholdt dette eksportforbud.«
|
|
11 By application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 21 February 1995, the applicant brought the present action.
|
Retsforhandlingerne
|
|
12 Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory measures of inquiry. The Court did, however, by letter of 4 October 1996, request the Commission to produce certain documents. The Commission did so, by letter lodged at the Registry on 9 October 1996.
|
11 Ved staevning indgivet til Rettens Justitskontor den 21. februar 1995 har sagsoegeren anlagt naervaerende sag.
|
|
13 The parties presented oral argument and their replies to the Court's questions at the hearing on 22 October 1996.
|
12 Paa grundlag af den refererende dommers rapport har Retten (Fjerde Afdeling) besluttet at indlede den mundtlige forhandling uden forudgaaende bevisoptagelse. Retten har dog ved skrivelse af 4. oktober 1996 anmodet Kommissionen om at fremlaegge visse dokumenter. Ved skrivelse indgivet til Justitskontoret den 9. oktober 1996 har Kommissionen fremlagt de kraevede dokumenter.
|
|
Forms of order sought by the parties
|
13 Parterne afgav mundtlige indlaeg og besvarede Rettens spoergsmaal i retsmoedet den 22. oktober 1996.
|
|
14 The applicant, Van Megen Sports Group BV, claims that the Court should annul the Commission's decision.
|
Parternes paastande
|
|
15 The defendant Commission contends that the Court should:
|
14 Sagsoegeren, Van Megen Sports Group BV, har nedlagt paastand om annullation af den anfaegtede beslutning.
|
|
- dismiss the application;
|
15 Sagsoegte, Kommissionen, har nedlagt foelgende paastande:
|
|
- order the applicant to pay the costs.
|
- Frifindelse.
|
|
The claim for annulment of the contested decision
|
- Sagsoegeren tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
|
|
16 Article 1 of the Decision charges the applicant with having participated in the implementation in the Netherlands in the reporting and investigation of parallel imports of tennis balls in order to enforce Tretorn's policy of preventing parallel imports and exports. The pleas in law put forward by the applicant, which essentially seek annulment of Article 1 of the Decision and consequently also of Article 2, in so far as those articles concern the applicant, should be examined with respect to that charge.
|
Paastanden om annullation af den anfaegtede beslutning
|
|
Arguments of the parties
|
16 I artikel 1 i den anfaegtede beslutning fastslaas det, at sagsoegeren i Nederlandene har deltaget i indberetningen og undersoegelsen af tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde med henblik paa at haandhaeve Tretorn's politik, der tilsigtede at hindre parallelimport og paralleleksport heraf. Paa denne baggrund maa de af sagsoegeren fremfoerte soegsmaalsgrunde undersoeges, som i det vaesentlige tilsigter, at beslutningens artikel 1 annulleres, og som konsekvens heraf, at dens artikel 2 annulleres, i det omfang artiklerne vedroerer sagsoegeren.
|
|
17 The applicant submits in effect that in so far as it finds that the applicant participated in the reporting and investigating of parallel imports of tennis balls, the Decision is not based on sufficient evidence and lacks an adequate statement of reasons.
|
Parternes argumenter
|
|
18 It observes that since about 1985 it has had a monopoly of sales in the Netherlands of tennis balls manufactured in Ireland by Tretorn, but there is no written agreement confirming that exclusive right. Tretorn never imposed a ban on exports. Since the start of commercial relations between them, the applicant reported to Tretorn on two occasions only, in 1987 and 1988, that Tretorn tennis balls not supplied by the applicant were being offered for sale to its customers. It submits that it made those reports, by telephone, for two reasons. First, it wished to check whether the balls had not been supplied directly by Tretorn to customers in the Netherlands, since at that stage of their commercial relations it was afraid that Tretorn might not respect its obligation not itself to supply the applicant's customers in the applicant's territory. That obligation was consistent with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1983/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive distribution agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 1). Secondly, given that the applicant's customers could buy Tretorn tennis balls at prices considerably lower than those at which it could offer them, it had tried, by making those reports, to strengthen its position in negotiations with Tretorn, so as to obtain a better price.
|
17 Sagsoegeren goer i det vaesentlige gaeldende, at beslutningen, i det omfang det deri konstateres, at selskabet har deltaget i indberetning og undersoegelse af tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde, ikke stoettes paa tilstraekkelige beviser og ikke er tilstraekkeligt begrundet.
|
|
19 As to the fax of 16 July 1987, the applicant had been informed by telephone by some of its customers that Scapino BV (hereinafter `Scapino'), a chain of shoe and clothes shops based in Assen (Netherlands), was selling tennis balls to consumers at a lower price than that applied by the applicant. Its customers had asked how that was possible and whether it was invoicing different prices to Scapino and to them. It had therefore contacted Tretorn to find out whether Tretorn did sometimes supply the Netherlands; this Tretorn denied. The fact that that does not appear in the fax is of no importance, since the fax was neither sent by nor addressed to the applicant, so that it could not have been aware of its content at the time. The wording of the fax should therefore not be given the importance attached to it by the Commission. The applicant states that it was asked to forward the date codes but was unable to find them. In any case, those codes would not have made it possible to determine from which country the tennis balls had been sent, since neither the manufacturer nor the importers have a tracking system. The code numbers on the packaging of the balls gave only the date of manufacture or shipment. Whether the balls were supplied to Germany, France or another country, all the balls manufactured during a given week were packaged in packaging bearing the same code. The codes were not mentioned on the invoices or packaging forms. Even if it could be ascertained that tennis balls came from a particular country, that would not make it possible to find out who had shipped the consignment in question. In the present case, it was easy to find out, for example, that the tennis balls purchased by Scapino came from France, because in France the packaging has to have text in French, something which the applicant pointed out in its telephone conversation with Tretorn. In any event, it was a matter of indifference to the applicant who had supplied Scapino with the balls. What mattered was to be able to pay for the balls the same price as the other distributors. The applicant found that Tretorn sold its tennis balls in France at a lower price than in the Netherlands. It discussed that with Tretorn and was eventually able to obtain better terms.
|
18 Sagsoegeren oplyser, at selskabet siden ca. 1985 har haft eneret til salg i Nederlandene af tennisbolde, som Tretorn fremstiller i Irland, men at der ikke foreligger en skriftlig aftale om denne eneret. Tretorn har aldrig paatvunget selskabet et eksportforbud. Siden begyndelsen af deres forretningsmaessige forbindelser har sagsoegeren kun to gange, i 1987 og i 1988, meddelt Tretorn, at tennisbolde af maerket Tretorn, der ikke hidroerte fra sagsoegeren, var blevet tilbudt selskabets kunder. Sagsoegeren haevder at have givet disse meddelelser pr. telefon af to grunde. For det foerste ville selskabet kontrollere, at boldene ikke var blevet leveret direkte af Tretorn til sagsoegerens kunder i Nederlandene, idet selskabet paa dette stadium af deres forretningsmaessige forbindelser frygtede, at Tretorn ikke overholdt sin forpligtelse til ikke selv at levere til sagsoegerens kunder paa dets omraade. Denne forpligtelse er i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens forordning (EOEF) nr. 1983/83 af 22. juni 1983 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, paa kategorier af eneforhandlingsaftaler (EFT L 173, s. 1). For det andet soegte sagsoegeren, da selskabets kunder kunne koebe Tretorn-tennisbolde til en pris, der var vaesentlig lavere end den pris, sagsoegeren selv kunne levere til, med disse meddelelser at styrke sin forhandlingsposition over for Tretorn med henblik paa at opnaa en lavere pris.
|
|
20 The same happened in mid-1988. The applicant points out that the memorandum of 20 June 1988, like the fax of 16 July 1987, was not sent by it and that it was not aware of its content at the time.
|
19 Hvad angaar telefaxen af 16. juli 1987 var sagsoegeren blevet underrettet telefonisk af nogle kunder om, at Scapino BV (herefter »Scapino«), der ejer en kaede af sko- og beklaedningsbutikker i Assen (Nederlandene), solgte tennisbolde til forbrugerne til en lavere pris end den, sagsoegeren anvendte. Sagsoegerens kunder havde spurgt om, hvordan dette var muligt, og om selskabet fakturerede andre priser til Scapino end til dem selv. Van Megen forhoerte sig derfor hos Tretorn om, hvorvidt denne undertiden leverede til Nederlandene, hvilket Tretorn benaegtede. Den omstaendighed, at dette ikke fremgaar af telefaxen, har ingen betydning, da telefaxen ikke hidroerer fra sagsoegeren og ikke er adresseret til selskabet, saaledes at det paa det paagaeldende tidspunkt ikke kunne have kendskab til indholdet. Telefaxens ordlyd kan derfor ikke tillaegges den betydning, Kommissionen goer. Van Megen anfoerer, at selskabet var blevet anmodet om at sende datokoderne, men at det ikke kunne finde dem. I oevrigt kan disse koder ikke anvendes til at fastslaa, fra hvilket land tennisboldene var afsendt, idet hverken fabrikanten eller importoererne har et »tracking-system«. De kodenumre, der er anfoert paa boldenes indpakning, indeholder blot datoen for fremstillingen/afsendelsen. Uanset om boldene leveres til Tyskland, Frankrig eller et andet land, er samtlige de bolde, der fremstilles i loebet af en bestemt uge, emballeret i indpakninger, der er paafoert den samme kode. Disse koder anfoeres hverken paa fakturaer eller pakkesedler. Selv om det forudsaettes, at det kan konstateres, at tennisboldene har oprindelse i et bestemt land, kan man dog ikke af den grund vide, hvem der har afsendt det paagaeldende parti. I det foreliggende tilfaelde vil det vaere nemt at konstatere f.eks, at de af Scapino indkoebte tennisbolde hidroerte fra Frankrig, fordi indpakningen i Frankrig skal vaere forsynet med en fransk tekst, hvilket sagsoegeren ogsaa paapegede under den telefoniske samtale med Tretorn. Under alle omstaendigheder er det uden betydning for Van Megen at vide, hvem der har leveret bolde til Scapino. Det vaesentlige er, at selskabet betaler samme pris for sine bolde som de oevrige forhandlere. Sagsoegeren har imidlertid konstateret, at Tretorn solgte tennisbolde til en lavere pris i Frankrig end i Nederlandene. Van Megen har diskuteret denne forskel med Tretorn og har senere opnaaet bedre betingelser.
|
|
21 The applicant then states that it was not informed of any agreements or concerted practices between Tretorn and/or other distributors and that it never acted in concert with the latter with respect to stopping supplies to parallel importers and/or exporters. On the contrary, it supplied tennis balls to Scapino, knowing that Scapino was selling Tretorn tennis balls in the Netherlands obtained by parallel imports from France. Scapino was the only undertaking which engaged in the parallel importation of Tretorn balls into the Netherlands. The applicant did nothing to obstruct those activities. In this respect, it cites a letter from Scapino as evidence. Scapino's statements in that letter show that the applicant's communications to Tretorn did not constitute acts incompatible with Community competition law.
|
20 En tilsvarende haendelse fandt sted midt i 1988. Sagsoegeren fremhaever, at notatet af 20. juni 1988, ligesom telefaxen af 16. juli 1987, ikke hidroerer fra selskabet, og at det paa davaerende tidspunkt ikke havde kendskab til notatets indhold.
|
|
22 In this connection, the two reports referred to in paragraph 18 above, the only evidence relied on by the Commission, do not show or do not sufficiently show that the applicant actively participated in obstructing parallel imports of Tretorn tennis balls within the Community. Since the applicant was not aware of the other agreements, practices or actions of Tretorn and/or the other distributors, those agreements, practices or actions cannot be imputed to it, and consequently cannot be used in argument against it. In the applicant's opinion, it is striking that in point 46 of the Decision the Commission mentions an internal Tretorn memorandum dated 23 August 1988 recommending stopping supplies to the United States market because tennis balls shipped there were turning up in the Netherlands as parallel imports, without asserting or establishing that that information came from the applicant.
|
21 Sagsoegeren haevder dernaest, at selskabet ikke var blevet underrettet om eventuelle aftaler eller samordnet praksis mellem Tretorn og/eller andre forhandlere, og at det aldrig havde truffet aftale med Tretorn om afbrydelse af leverancer til andre parallelimportoerer og/eller -eksportoerer. Tvaertimod har Van Megen leveret tennisbolde til Scapino, som Van Megen vidste solgte Tretorn-tennisbolde i Nederlandene ved hjaelp af parallelimport fra Frankrig. Scapino er det eneste selskab, som har foretaget parallelimport af Tretorn-bolde til Nederlandene. Sagsoegeren har intet foretaget sig for at forhindre dette. I denne sammenhaeng paaberaaber Van Megen sig en skrivelse fra Scapino som bevis. Brevets indhold viser, at sagsoegerens meddelelse til Tretorn ikke udgoer handlinger, der er uforenelige med faellesskabsretten paa konkurrenceomraadet.
|
|
23 Moreover, the applicant observes that according to point 70 of the Decision it was well aware that the information given to Tretorn was given in the context of a ban on parallel imports, so that it `actively participated in identifying the source of the parallel imports with a view to suppressing it'. It submits that that reasoning is wrong and does not follow from the facts. It asserts that two telephone reports in 10 years, in which it attempted to find out whether Tretorn was exporting directly to the Netherlands and to obtain better prices, cannot be regarded as `active participation'. In the absence of other arguments by the Commission, the statement of reasons must consequently be considered inadequate.
|
22 I denne sammenhaeng anfoerer sagsoegeren, at de to henvendelser, der er omtalt ovenfor i praemis 18, og som er de eneste beviser, Kommissionen har paaberaabt sig, ikke eller ikke i tilstraekkelig grad godtgoer, at sagsoegeren aktivt har deltaget i gennemfoerelsen af hindringer for parallelimport af Tretorn-tennisbolde i Faellesskabet. Da sagsoegeren ikke har haft kendskab til Tretorn's og/eller andre forhandleres aftaler, fremgangsmaader eller handlinger, kan de paagaeldende aftaler, fremgangsmaader eller handlinger ikke tilregnes Van Megen og derfor heller ikke anvendes som argumentation imod selskabet. Efter sagsoegerens opfattelse er det paafaldende, at der i 46. betragtning til Kommissionens beslutning omtales et internt Tretorn-notat dateret den 23. august 1988, hvori det anbefales at afbryde leverancerne til det amerikanske marked, fordi tennisbolde, der var leveret til USA, dukkede op i Nederlandene ved hjaelp af parallelimport, uden at Kommissionen haevder eller godtgoer, at disse oplysninger stammer fra sagsoegeren.
|
|
24 The Commission contends to begin with that the evidence it has to show that Tretorn infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty is particularly solid and justifies the conclusion that Tretorn's conduct was not unilateral but was part of an agreement or concerted practice between it and its distributors. The Commission refers to points 16 to 50 of the Decision, and in particular point 15, where it quotes a passage from a fax of 6 June 1989 from Tretorn AB to Zuercher AG, which says that `... our policy is to protect each and every distributor from grey market imports. We have also ... implemented many controls, designed new packages, refused several orders, etc., in order to keep this grey market business at a minimum.'
|
23 Dernaest paapeger sagsoegeren, at selskabet ifoelge 70. betragtning til beslutningen skulle vaere vidende om, at oplysningerne blev givet til Tretorn i tilknytning til et forbud mod paralleleksport, saaledes at selskabet »deltog aktivt i identifikationen af kilden til parallelimporten med henblik paa at eliminere den«. Sagsoegeren haevder, at denne begrundelse er forkert og ikke foelger af de faktiske omstaendigheder. Selskabet anfoerer, at to telefoniske meddelelser paa ti aar, hvorved det har forsoegt at faa oplyst, om Tretorn eksporterede direkte til Nederlandene, og for at opnaa en bedre pris, ikke kan betegnes som »aktiv deltagelse«. Da Kommissionen ikke har fremfoert andre argumenter, maa begrundelsen saaledes betragtes som utilstraekkelig.
|
|
25 It then asserts that it has sufficient evidence of the infringement committed by the applicant. The two pieces of evidence summarized in points 24 and 25 of the Decision, namely the fax of 16 July 1987 and the internal memorandum of 20 June 1988, fully warrant the conclusion that the applicant actively participated in the Netherlands in reporting and investigating parallel imports in order to implement Tretorn's policy.
|
24 Kommissionen goer indledningsvis gaeldende, at de beviser, den har, for at Tretorn har overtraadt traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, er saerdeles holdbare og giver grundlag for at udlede, at selskabets adfaerd ikke blot var ensidig, men indgik som en del af en aftale eller samordnet praksis mellem Tretorn og virksomhedens forhandlere. Den henviser til 16.-50. betragtning til beslutningen og navnlig til 15. betragtning, hvor den har gengivet en del af en telefax af 16. juni 1989 fra Tretorn AB til Zuercher AG, hvori det anfoeres: »... vores politik gaar ud paa at beskytte samtlige vore forhandlere mod importen paa det graa marked. Vi har ogsaa ... indfoert en raekke kontrolforanstaltninger, designet nye emballager, afvist adskillige ordrer osv. for at begraense det graa marked saa vidt muligt«.
|
|
26 On this point, the fax of 16 July 1987 shows that it was the applicant who telephoned Tretorn to inform it that Tretorn tennis balls not coming from the applicant had `again' turned up on the Netherlands market. Tretorn thereupon asked the applicant to inform it of the code number, to enable it to find out `which country [had] shipped' those products. The remainder of the text of the fax shows that Tretorn already had suspicions (`while I of course suspect our friends') as to the origin of the goods, namely the United Kingdom (`if it is the UK'), and that the request to the applicant to forward the code number was intended to obtain proof of those suspicions (`we must wait for proof').
|
25 Kommissionen anfoerer dernaest, at den har tilstraekkelige beviser for den overtraedelse, sagsoegeren har begaaet. De to beviser, der er gengivet kort i 24. og 25. betragtning til beslutningen, nemlig telefaxen af 16. juli 1987 og det interne notat af 20. juni 1988, giver klart grundlag for at fastslaa, at sagsoegeren har deltaget aktivt i indberetningen og undersoegelsen af tilfaelde af parallelimport i Nederlandene med henblik paa gennemfoerelsen af Tretorn's politik.
|
|
27 The Commission considers that the reasons given by the applicant to explain its reports to Tretorn are unconvincing. First, the word `again' leaves some doubt as to the applicant's assertion that its report was an isolated occurrence. Secondly, the fax makes no mention whatever of the applicant's being suspicious that Tretorn was itself supplying the Netherlands. Nor does it refer to attempts by the applicant to obtain a better price. It refers solely to an instance of parallel imports reported by the applicant and looked into by Tretorn and the applicant jointly. In particular, the sentence mentioning that the applicant had been asked to forward the code number in order to determine the country of origin leaves no doubt as to the applicant's actual participation in reporting and investigating cases of parallel imports.
|
26 I denne sammenhaeng fremgaar det af telefaxen af 16. juli 1987, at sagsoegeren har telefoneret til Tretorn for at underrette selskabet om, at Tretorn-tennisbolde, der ikke hidroerte fra sagsoegeren, igen (»again«) var dukket op paa det nederlandske marked. Tretorn har dernaest anmodet sagsoegeren om at sende kodenummeret, saaledes at virksomheden kunne fastslaa, hvilket land produktet hidroerte fra (»which country had shipped«). Kommissionen udleder dernaest af telefaxen, at Tretorn allerede havde visse formodninger hvad angaar varernes oprindelse (»while I of course suspect our friends«), nemlig Det Forenede Kongerige (»if it is the UK«), og at anmodningen til sagsoegeren om at sende kodenummeret havde til formaal at bevise disse formodninger (»we must wait for proof«).
|
|
28 The same conclusion follows from the internal memorandum of 20 June 1988. That memorandum shows that the applicant had reported that there were parallel imports from two sources and was evidently in the course of investigating the code numbers in order to identify those sources. The final sentence of the memorandum shows that the applicant hoped to find out the date codes within a few days.
|
27 Kommissionen finder, at de grunde, sagsoegeren har givet som forklaring paa meddelelsen til Tretorn, er meget lidt overbevisende. For det foerste efterlader udtrykket »igen« (»again«) tvivl hvad angaar sagsoegerens paastand om, at meddelelsen er tilfaeldig. For det andet indeholder telefaxen intet om, at sagsoegeren mistaenkte Tretorn for selv at have leveret til Nederlandene. Dokumentet henviser heller ikke til sagsoegerens forsoeg paa at opnaa en bedre pris. Det omhandler alene et tilfaelde af parallelimport, som sagsoegeren har gjort opmaerksom paa, og som er undersoegt i faellesskab af Tretorn og sagsoegeren. Navnlig efterlader saetningen om, at sagsoegeren var blevet anmodet om at sende kodenummeret med henblik paa at fastslaa oprindelseslandet, ikke nogen tvivl om, at sagsoegeren effektivt har deltaget i indberetningen af tilfaelde af parallelimport og i undersoegelsen heraf.
|
|
29 The Commission rejects the applicant's argument that the fax and the internal memorandum have no evidential value. It observes that these are internal Tretorn documents, written by someone who was well-informed, in which certain practices of the applicant are reported, outside the context of any defence or justification before the Commission or the Court of First Instance. The fact that the documents come from a well-informed person who had no reason to falsify his description of the applicant's practices only confirms their probative force.
|
28 Det interne notat af 20. juni 1988 viser det samme. Det fremgaar heraf, at sagsoegeren havde paapeget, at der forekom parallelimport fra to kilder, og at man var klart i faerd med at eftersoege kodenumrene med henblik paa en identifikation af kilderne. Det fremgaar af sidste saetning i notatet, at sagsoegeren haabede at vaere i besiddelse af datokoderne nogle dage senere (»he hopes to have date codes in a few days«).
|
|
30 As to the applicant's argument relating to point 46 of the Decision (see paragraph 22 above), the Commission explains that, with regard to the applicant, it did not rely on the fact mentioned in point 46, but only on the two items of evidence referred to in points 24 and 25 of the Decision. It was thus unnecessary to refer to the applicant by name in point 46. Nevertheless, Tretorn could not have been informed except by the applicant that tennis balls supplied to the United States were appearing on the Netherlands market.
|
29 Kommissionen imoedegaar sagsoegerens argument om, at telefaxen og det interne notat ikke har bevisvaerdi. Den anfoerer, at der er tale om interne dokumenter i Tretorn, der er udarbejdet af en velunderrettet person, og hvori der omtales en bestemt praksis hos sagsoegeren uden sammenhaeng med en kontradiktorisk procedure eller bevisfoerelse for Kommissionen eller for Retten. Den omstaendighed, at disse dokumenter hidroerer fra en velunderrettet person, som ikke har nogen grund til at forvanske beskrivelsen af praksis hos sagsoegeren, er blot en understregning af deres bevismaessige vaerdi.
|
|
31 The Commission submits that the letter from Scapino does not contradict its evidence in any way. Rather, it follows from that letter that the applicant played a double game. The Commission notes that the letter was written recently in the context of the applicant's defence to the Commission's findings. There is no proof that it really was Scapino which benefited from parallel imports in 1987 and 1988, nor that it was the only parallel importer. Nor has it been established that Scapino was aware of the general context of the applicant's practices, in particular its contacts with Tretorn.
|
30 Hvad angaar sagsoegerens argument i forbindelse med 46. betragtning til den anfaegtede beslutning (jf. ovenfor, praemis 22) forklarer Kommissionen, at den ikke for saa vidt angaar sagsoegeren har stoettet sig til det forhold, der henvises til i denne betragtning, men alene til de to beviser, der er anfoert i 24. og 25. betragtning. Det var derfor ikke noedvendigt at naevne sagsoegeren ved navn i 46. betragtning. Ikke desto mindre kan Tretorn kun have faaet sine oplysninger om, at der paa det nederlandske marked var fremkommet tennisbolde, der var leveret til De Forenede Stater, fra sagsoegeren.
|
|
32 The Commission disputes the applicant's assertion that it is not possible to determine from the date codes from which country the tennis balls have been shipped. There is no doubt that the Tretorn manager knew what information could be deduced from the codes. The fact that he asked the applicant for the date codes in order to find out from them the country of origin of the tennis balls shows that the codes could indeed be used for that purpose.
|
31 Kommissionen goer gaeldende, at Scapino's skrivelse paa ingen maade bestrider disse beviser. Det foelger snarere af denne skrivelse, at sagsoegeren har spillet dobbeltspil. Kommissionen anfoerer, at brevet er blevet udarbejdet for nylig i forbindelse med sagsoegerens forsvar mod Kommissionens konstateringer. Det er ikke bevist, at Scapino faktisk er den virksomhed, som havde fordel af parallelimport i 1987 og 1988, og heller ikke, at dette selskab var den eneste parallelimportoer. Det er heller ikke godtgjort, at Scapino havde kendskab til sagsoegerens almindelige praksis og til de kontakter, sagsoegeren havde med Tretorn.
|
|
33 The Commission submits, finally, that contrary to the applicant's assertion, the Decision contains a sufficient statement of reasons. It refers on this point to its observations (see above).
|
32 Kommissionen bestrider sagsoegerens udtalelse om, at det ikke er muligt ved hjaelp af datokoder at fastslaa, hvilket land tennisboldene var afsendt fra. Der er ingen tvivl om, at den ansvarlige i Tretorn vidste, hvilke oplysninger der kunne udledes af disse koder. Det forhold, at sagsoegeren var blevet anmodet om at sende datokoderne for at fastslaa tennisboldenes oprindelsesland viser, at koderne faktisk kunne anvendes til dette formaal.
|
|
Findings of the Court
|
33 Endelig anfoerer Kommissionen, at i modsaetning til, hvad sagsoegeren haevder, er beslutningen tilstraekkeligt begrundet. Den henviser paa dette punkt til de bemaerkninger, den har fremfoert (jf. ovenfor).
|
|
34 The applicant does not deny that Tretorn operated a system of exclusive distribution coupled with a prohibition of exports and with mechanisms intended to ensure that that prohibition was applied as effectively as possible. It acknowledges that it has been Tretorn's exclusive distributor in the Netherlands since 1985. It denies, on the other hand, that Tretorn imposed an export ban on it and that it participated in the reporting and investigating of parallel imports. Until the Commission initiated the infringement procedure, it had not even been aware of the ban on parallel exports.
|
Rettens bemaerkninger
|
|
35 According to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, the provisions of Article 85(1) of the Treaty may not be declared inapplicable to an exclusive distribution contract which does not in itself include a prohibition of re-exports of the products which are the subject of the contract, where the contracting parties are engaged in a concerted practice aimed at restricting parallel imports intended for an unauthorized dealer (see Case 86/82 Hasselblad v Commission [1984] ECR 883 and Case T-43/92 Dunlop Slazenger v Commission [1994] ECR II-441, paragraph 88).
|
34 Van Megen bestrider ikke, at Tretorn har anvendt et eneforhandlingssystem sammen med et eksportforbud og forholdsregler til sikring af, at dette forbud anvendes saa effektivt som muligt. Van Megen anerkender i oevrigt at have vaeret Tretorn's eneforhandler i Nederlandene siden 1985. Derimod bestrider Van Megen, at Tretorn har paalagt det et eksportforbud, og at det har deltaget i indberetninger og undersoegelser i forbindelse med parallelimport. Inden Kommissionen ivaerksatte overtraedelsesproceduren har Van Megen end ikke haft kendskab til forbuddet mod paralleleksport.
|
|
36 In the present case, the Commission had relied on the following two documents, described in points 24 and 25 of the Decision, as proof that the applicant had taken part in the Netherlands in the reporting and investigating of parallel imports:
|
35 Efter Domstolens og Rettens praksis kan traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, ikke anses for uanvendelig paa en eneforhandlingsaftale, som ikke i sig selv indeholder et forbud mod eksport af de af aftalen omfattede varer, naar aftaleparterne deltager i en samordnet praksis med henblik paa at begraense parallelimport til en ikke-autoriseret forhandler (jf. Domstolens dom af 21.2.1984, sag 86/82, Hasselblad mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 883, og Rettens dom af 7.7.1994, sag T-43/92, Dunlop Slazenger mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 441, praemis 88).
|
|
- a fax of 16 July 1987 from Mr M. of Tretorn to Mr A. of Tretorn AB:
|
36 I naervaerende sag har Kommissionen stoettet sig paa de to foelgende beviser, der er beskrevet i 24. og 25. betragtning til beslutningen, for at godtgoere, at sagsoegeren i Nederlandene har deltaget i indberetning og undersoegelse i forbindelse med parallelimport:
|
|
`I just had a phone call from Will Van Megen to advise that XL boxes of 4 again turning up in a major shoe chain in Holland.
|
- en telefax af 16. juli 1987, som M. i Tretorn har sendt til A. i Tretorn AB:
|
|
I have asked Will to forward the Code No. to [Mr O.] so that he can advise which country has shipped.
|
»I just had a phone call from Will Van Megen to advise that XL boxes of 4 again turning up in a major shoe chain in Holland.
|
|
While I of course suspect our friends, we must wait for the proof.
|
I have asked Will to forward the Code No. to [O.] so that he can advise which country has shipped.
|
|
If it is the UK, then obviously the shipment has been made to Holland in the past few weeks.'
|
While I of course suspect our friends, we must wait for the proof.
|
|
- a Tretorn internal memorandum of 20 June 1988 from Mr M. to Mr O.:
|
If it is the UK, then obviously the shipment has been made to Holland in the past few weeks.«
|
|
`Please ring Will Van Megen. He has parallel from 2 different sources. 1 Box of 4, made in Ireland, no date code yet. 2 Box of 4, USTA approved, no date code yet. He hopes to have date codes in a few days.'
|
(»Jeg har netop modtaget en opringning fra Will Van Megen med oplysning om, at XL-aesker med 4 igen er dukket op i en stoerre skobutikskaede i Holland.
|
|
37 Those two documents from Tretorn have probative force. As the Commission rightly observed, they were written by a well-informed third party who had no reason to give false information. Moreover, they were written outside the context of any procedure for defence or justification before the Commission or this Court.
|
Jeg har bedt Will om at sende [O.] kodenummeret, saaledes at han kan fastslaa, hvilket land de er afsendt fra.
|
|
38 Those two pieces of evidence clearly establish that the applicant participated in the reporting and investigating of parallel imports of tennis balls, for the purposes of applying Tretorn's policy. It is clear from the fax of 16 July 1987 that the applicant informed Tretorn of the existence of parallel imports of Tretorn tennis balls in the Netherlands, that it was not the first time that it gave Tretorn such information, and that it had been asked to provide the date codes which might enable Tretorn to determine the country from which the balls came. As to the internal memorandum of 20 June 1988, that document shows that the applicant again informed Tretorn of the existence of parallel imports of Tretorn tennis balls in the Netherlands, that it had identified two different sources of those imports, and that it was investigating to obtain the date codes.
|
Selv om jeg naturligvis har mistanke til vore venner, maa vi vente paa beviset.
|
|
39 With respect to the Tretorn internal memorandum of 23 August 1988, mentioned at point 46 of the Decision, recommending the stopping of deliveries to the American market because tennis balls delivered there were reappearing in the Netherlands via parallel imports, it is sufficient to observe that the Commission did not rely on that document with regard to the applicant. Point 46 of the Decision comes under the heading `Suspension of supplies to prevent parallel imports', under which the Commission mentions the measures adopted by Tretorn to deal with those imports. That document is thus relied on as against Tretorn, and not the applicant, in whose case the Commission rightly considered that it had sufficient evidence.
|
Saafremt det er UK, er leveringen sikkert sendt til Holland i loebet af de seneste uger.«)
|
|
40 As to the date codes, the fax of 16 July 1987, the internal memorandum of 20 June 1988 and the other evidence relied on by the Commission in the Decision (see points 36 to 38 and 40) show beyond doubt that Tretorn could identify the origin of parallel imports from the date codes. That can be seen in particular from a fax of 17 April 1987 from Tretorn to Formula Sport International Ltd (see point 37), in which Mr M. of Tretorn stated: `The date codes are all from the shipment to Formula.' It can also be seen from a fax of 15 May 1987, also from Tretorn to Formula Sport International Ltd, in which Mr M. states: `We are sure of our facts/date codes and the balls shipped to Formula ended up in Switzerland. ... Formula is guilty so let's not have any more discussion.'
|
- Tretorn's interne notat af 20. juni 1988, som M. har sendt til O.:
|
|
41 As for the letter from Scapino, that document does not in any way contradict the Commission's evidence. The applicant could not itself prevent the parallel imports by Scapino. Had it wished to prevent them, it would have had to contact Tretorn, so that that company might take the necessary measures for that purpose. Moreover, it was naturally in the applicant's interest to sell as many Tretorn tennis balls as possible, to Scapino amongst others. It should also be noted that Tretorn's policy was to prohibit exports. There is nothing before the Court to suggest that Scapino would have exported the Tretorn tennis balls supplied by the applicant. The applicant therefore did not infringe Tretorn's policy by selling the balls to Scapino, which, like the applicant, is a Netherlands undertaking. Tretorn thus had no interest either in asking the applicant to refuse to supply Scapino, even assuming that it had been informed of those sales.
|
»Please ring Will Van Megen. He has parallel from 2 different sources.
|
|
42 The reasons given by the applicant to explain why it made reports to Tretorn cannot be accepted. If the applicant had wished to make those reports solely in order to find out whether Tretorn was making direct supplies to customers in the Netherlands and to strengthen its position in negotiations with Tretorn and thereby obtain a better price, it would not have needed to try to obtain the date codes of the tennis balls imported in parallel. It is thus apparent that it was in fact aware of Tretorn's policy of prohibiting parallel imports. It follows that the Commission was correct in finding, in point 70 of the Decision, that even if the interpretation given by the applicant was correct, `the fact remains that the information was given in the context of a ban on parallel exports of which Van Megen was well aware and it actively participated in identifying the source of the parallel imports'.
|
1 Box of 4, made in Ireland, no date code yet.
|
|
43 The applicant cannot, finally, argue that its two telephone conversations with Tretorn cannot be described as active participation, since it was the applicant which took the initiative in contacting Tretorn, not vice versa. Moreover, it can be seen from paragraph 38 above that the applicant made inquiries to obtain the date codes of the parallel imports. It follows that the applicant actively participated in Tretorn's policy.
|
2 Box of 4, US TA approved, no date code yet.
|
|
44 It follows from the foregoing that the pleas in law alleging that the Commission did not adduce sufficient evidence and did not give an adequate statement of reasons for its decision must be rejected.
|
He hopes to have date codes in a few days.«
|
|
The claim for annulment of the fine
|
(»Ring venligst til Will Van Megen. Han har parallelimport fra to forskellige kilder.
|
|
Arguments of the parties
|
1) AEske med 4, der er fremstillet i Irland, endnu ingen datokode.
|
|
45 The applicant submits, first, that the reasons stated for the amount of the fine, set out in point 78 of the Decision (see paragraph 9 above), are insufficient. It observes that the Commission does not indicate the degree to which each distributor participated in Tretorn's policy or the evidence it relied on to establish that participation. It points out that the same fine was imposed on four of the five distributors even though, in its opinion, the documents in the case made it clear enough that the `contribution', whether conscious or not, of the various distributors varied greatly.
|
2) AEske med 4, US TA-godkendt, endnu ingen datokode.
|
|
46 It states, secondly, that during the administrative procedure it argued that, assuming that it had infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty, which it denied, a penalty should not be imposed on it, since its two telephone reports were isolated occurrences of secondary importance. The Commission failed to take account of that argument, although it expressly refrained from imposing a fine on Tenimport. The applicant had, however, put forward a comparable defence and its situation had been almost the same as Tenimport's. That the applicant never maintained that there was a ban on exports was attributable to the fact that such a ban had never been imposed on it.
|
Han haaber at have datokoderne om faa dage.«)
|
|
47 The applicant does not accept the Commission's argument that it had doubts as to whether an infringement of the Treaty was imputable to Tenimport. The applicant considers that the remission of a fine for an infringement regarded as proven cannot depend on the extent of the doubts subsisting in the Commission's assessment.
|
37 Disse to dokumenter fra Tretorn har bevisvaerdi. Som Kommissionen med rette har fremhaevet, er de udarbejdet af en velunderrettet tredjemand, som ikke har haft nogen grund til at udsende falske oplysninger. Hertil kommer, at de er udarbejdet uden sammenhaeng med en kontradiktorisk procedure eller bevisfoerelse for Kommissionen eller Retten.
|
|
48 The Commission considers that it gave sufficient reasons for the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant. As to the part played by the applicant in the infringement, that was determined in points 24, 25, 70 and 76 of the Decision. As regards the level of each fine imposed in relation to the others, the Commission took into account, in fixing them, as indicated in point 78 of the Decision, the degree to which each distributor had participated in the infringement. It also considered the part played by the various distributors `in the context of Tretorn's general policy of prohibiting any export of its products'. Those considerations led it to impose a substantial fine, as a proportion of its turnover, on Tretorn alone. By contrast, it imposed on the distributors only a flat-rate fine of a small amount. The underlying idea of that decision was that Tretorn had been principally responsible, while the distributors' responsibility consisted merely in cooperating in the functioning of the system operated by Tretorn. The Commission states that since what was involved was cooperation in the functioning of one and the same system and the fines envisaged were moreover to be flat-rate fines of small amounts, it did not think it necessary to draw a distinction between the distributors.
|
38 Disse to beviser godtgoer klart, at sagsoegeren har deltaget i indberetning og undersoegelse i tilfaelde af parallelimport af tennisbolde med henblik paa at haandhaeve Tretorn's politik. Det foelger af telefaxen af 16. juli 1987, at sagsoegeren har underrettet Tretorn om parallelimport af Tretorn-tennisbolde til Nederlandene, at det ikke var foerste gang, at selskabet sendte en saadan oplysning til Tretorn, og at det var blevet anmodet om at levere datokoder, som kunne give Tretorn adgang til at fastslaa, hvilket land boldene hidroerte fra. Det fremgaar af det interne notat af 20. juni 1988, at sagsoegeren paa ny havde underrettet Tretorn om parallelimport af Tretorn-tennisbolde til Nederlandene, at selskabet havde identificeret to forskellige kilder til denne import, og at det foretog undersoegelser for at faa datokoderne.
|
|
49 However, an exception was made for the Belgian distributor, Tenimport, because the Commission considered that it did not have such strong evidence of its participation in implementing Tretorn's policy. The only document it had was a fax of 27 February 1989 from Tenimport to Tretorn. In that fax Tenimport complained of the `incredible' price of the Tretorn tennis balls which transited through Belgium to Italy and asked how such prices could be applied. The Commission concluded that the explanation given by Tenimport, namely that it was doing no more than negotiating prices with Tretorn, did not seem altogether improbable. On the other hand, the fax of 16 July 1987 and the internal memorandum of 20 June 1988 concerning the applicant made no mention of prices, but only of the appearance on the Netherlands market of tennis balls which did not come from the applicant and of cooperation between Tretorn and the applicant to find the source of those parallel imports. Those documents were thus quite different in content from the fax from Tenimport.
|
39 Hvad angaar det interne Tretorn-notat, som er dateret den 23. august 1988, og som er omtalt i 46. betragtning til beslutningen, hvorved det anbefales at standse leverancerne til det amerikanske marked, fordi tennisbolde, der var leveret dertil, blev parallelimporteret til Nederlandene, er det tilstraekkeligt at konstatere, at Kommissionen ikke har anvendt dette dokument for saa vidt angaar sagsoegeren. Saaledes henhoerer 46. betragtning under overskriften »Afbrydelse af leverancer for at hindre parallelimport«, hvor Kommissionen beskriver de foranstaltninger, Tretorn har anvendt for at hindre denne import. Dette dokument paaberaabes saaledes over for Tretorn og ikke over for sagsoegeren, over for hvem Kommissionen med rette har fastslaaet, at den havde tilstraekkelige beviser.
|
|
50 The Commission rejects the applicant's argument that it put forward the same defence as Tenimport. As point 77 of the Decision shows, Tenimport confirmed at the hearing the existence of the infringement committed by Tretorn. Tenimport also cooperated with the Commission's investigations after that. Furthermore, it can be seen from point 77 that Tenimport had been penalized by Tretorn, which terminated the distribution agreement because Tenimport had refused to cooperate in the context of its system of export bans. In any event, it is not for the applicant to defend Tenimport, which has not lodged a complaint against the contested decision.
|
40 Hvad angaar datokoderne viser telefaxen af 16. juli 1987, det interne notat af 20. juni 1988 og andre beviser, som Kommissionen har paaberaabt sig i den anfaegtede beslutning (jf. 36.-38. og 40. betragtning), uden enhver tvivl, at Tretorn kunne identificere de parallelimporterede varers oprindelse paa grundlag af disse koder. Dette foelger navnlig af en telefax af 17. april 1987 fra Tretorn til Formula Sport International Ltd (jf. 37. betragtning), hvori M. fra Tretorn anfoerer: »The date codes are all from the shipment to Formula.« (»Datokoderne stammer alle fra leverancen til Formula«). Det fremgaar ogsaa af en telefax af 15. maj 1987, der ligeledes er sendt fra Tretorn til Formula Sport International Ltd, hvori M. anfoerer: »We are sure of our facts/date codes and the balls shipped to Formula ended up i Switzerland. ... Formula is guilty so let's not have any more discussion.« (»Vi er sikre paa vore fakta/datokoderne, og de bolde, der er leveret til Formula, er endt i Schweiz ... Formula er skyldig, lad os undlade yderligere diskussion.«)
|
|
Findings of the Court
|
41 Hvad angaar Scapino's skrivelse maa det noedvendigvis konstateres, at den paa ingen maade imoedegaar Kommissionens beviser. Van Megen kunne nemlig ikke selv forhindre Scapino's parallelimport. Saafremt Van Megen havde villet forhindre det, var selskabet forpligtet til at kontakte Tretorn, saaledes at Tretorn kunne traeffe de noedvendige foranstaltninger med henblik herpaa. Dernaest var det naturligvis i sagsoegerens interesse at saelge saa mange Tretorn-tennisbolde som muligt, herunder til Scapino. Det skal ligeledes bemaerkes, at Tretorn's politik bestod i at forbyde eksport. Det fremgaar imidlertid paa ingen maade af sagen, at Scapino har eksporteret Tretorn-tennisbolde, som sagsoegeren har leveret. Van Megen har saaledes ikke tilsidesat Tretorn's politik ved at saelge bolde til Scapino, der er en nederlandsk virksomhed ligesom sagsoegeren. Af samme grund havde Tretorn heller ikke interesse i at anmode sagsoegeren om at naegte at levere til Scapino, selv om Tretorn maatte vaere underrettet om disse salg.
|
|
51 It is settled case-law that the purpose of the obligation to give reasons for an individual decision is to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the decision and to provide the party concerned with an adequate indication as to whether the decision is well founded or whether it may be vitiated by some defect enabling its validity to be challenged; the scope of that obligation depends on the nature of the act in question and on the context in which it was adopted (see, inter alia, Case T-46/92 Scottish Football Association v Commission [1994] ECR II-1039, paragraph 19). Moreover, since a decision constitutes a single whole, each of its parts must be read in the light of the others (see Case T-150/89 Martinelli v Commission [1995] ECR II-1165, paragraph 66).
|
42 Sagsoegerens forklaringer paa, hvorfor selskabet foretog indberetning til Tretorn, kan ikke laegges til grund. Saafremt sagsoegeren kun har villet foretage disse indberetninger for at undersoege, om Tretorn leverede direkte til kunder i Nederlandene, og for at styrke sin forhandlingsposition i forhold til Tretorn og saaledes opnaa en bedre pris, ville selskabet ikke have haft behov for at soege at fremskaffe datokoderne paa de parallelimporterede tennisbolde. Det fremgaar saaledes, at Van Megen reelt havde kendskab til den af Tretorn anvendte politik med forbud mod paralleleksport. Det foelger heraf, at Kommissionen med foeje har fastslaaet i 70. betragtning til beslutningen, at selv om sagsoegerens fortolkning var korrekt, »[forholdt] det sig stadig saaledes, at oplysningerne blev angivet i tilknytning til et forbud mod paralleleksport, som Van Megen var vel vidende om, og selskabet deltog aktivt i identifikationen af kilden til parallelimporten«.
|
|
52 In the present case, the Commission clearly indicated in the Decision the degree to which each distributor participated in Tretorn's policy and the evidence on which it relied to establish that participation. As regards, more specifically, the applicant, the degree of its participation may be seen in particular from points 24, 25, 57, 70 and 76 to 78 and from the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of the Decision. The analysis as set out in paragraphs 36 to 44 above shows that the Commission provided adequate substantiation and reasons for its decision, in that it found that the applicant had participated in the reporting and investigating of parallel imports of Tretorn tennis balls in order to enforce Tretorn's policy.
|
43 Sagsoegeren kan heller ikke haevde, at selskabets to telefonsamtaler med Tretorn ikke kan betegnes som aktiv deltagelse, da det er selskabet, som har taget initiativ til at kontakte Tretorn, og ikke omvendt. Dernaest fremgaar det af praemis 38 ovenfor, at sagsoegeren har foretaget undersoegelser for at fremskaffe de parallelimporterede boldes datokode. Det foelger heraf, at sagsoegeren har deltaget aktivt i Tretorn's politik.
|
|
53 As to the amount of the fine, it should be pointed out that, according to the case-law, since fines constitute an instrument of the Commission's competition policy, that institution must be allowed a margin of discretion when fixing their amount, in order that it may direct the conduct of undertakings towards compliance with the competition rules (see Martinelli, cited above, paragraph 59).
|
44 Det foelger af ovenstaaende, at anbringenderne om, at Kommissionen ikke har fremlagt tilstraekkelige beviser og ikke har begrundet sin beslutning tilstraekkeligt, ikke kan tages til foelge.
|
|
54 As may be seen from the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Decision, the Commission imposed flat-rate fines of small amounts on Tretorn's distributors. It should also be noted that the distributors all cooperated in the functioning of the same system. In such a situation the Commission is not obliged to distinguish between the various distributors or state reasons peculiar to each distributor for the amount of the fine imposed. Consequently, the Commission did not exceed the limits of its margin of discretion.
|
Paastanden om ophaevelse af boeden
|
|
55 With reference to the applicant's argument that a penalty should not have been imposed on it because the two telephone reports were isolated occurrences of secondary importance, it follows from paragraph 43 above that the applicant's participation in Tretorn's policy had to be regarded as active. The Commission was therefore correct in taking no account of that argument. On this point, it should also be noted that, according to settled case-law, although under Article 190 of the Treaty the Commission is obliged to state the reasons on which its decisions are based and to mention the factual and legal elements which provide the legal basis for the measure and the considerations which have led to its adoption, it is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by every party during the administrative procedure (see, inter alia, Case T-149/89 Sotralentz v Commission [1995] ECR II-1127, paragraph 73).
|
Parternes argumenter
|
|
56 Finally, the applicant's reliance on the fact that no fine was imposed on Tenimport can be of no assistance to its case. An applicant may not argue from such a circumstance in order himself to escape a penalty imposed for breach of Article 85 of the Treaty when the other undertaking's circumstances are not even the subject of proceedings before the Community judicature (see Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/85 Ahlstroem and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1307, paragraph 197, and Dunlop Slazenger, cited above, paragraph 176).
|
45 Sagsoegeren goer for det foerste gaeldende, at begrundelsen for boedens stoerrelse, der er anfoert i 78. betragtning til beslutningen (jf. ovenfor, praemis 9), er utilstraekkelig. Selskabet anfoerer, at Kommissionen ikke oplyser omfanget af hver forhandlers deltagelse i Tretorn's politik eller de elementer, som Kommissionen har stoettet sig paa ved fastlaeggelsen af denne deltagelse. Selskabet bemaerker, at fire af de fem forhandlere er blevet paalagt den samme boede, selv om sagens akter efter sagsoegerens opfattelse i tilstraekkelig grad viser, at de forskellige forhandleres bevidste eller ubevidste »deltagelse« var meget forskellig.
|
|
57 The claim for annulment of the fine must consequently be rejected.
|
46 Van Megen goer for det andet gaeldende, at selskabet under den administrative procedure har haevdet, at forudsat at det har overtraadt traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, hvilket det benaegter, er der ikke grundlag for at paalaegge det en sanktion, da de to telefonindberetninger var lejlighedsvise og uvaesentlige. Kommissionen har ikke taget dette argument til foelge, selv om den udtrykkeligt har undladt at paalaegge Tenimport en boede. Sagsoegeren har imidlertid fremfoert et tilsvarende forsvar som denne virksomhed, og sagsoegerens situation har vaeret naesten den samme som Tenimport's. Det forhold, at sagsoegeren aldrig har haevdet, at der forelaa et eksportforbud, ses af den omstaendighed, at selskabet aldrig har faaet paalagt et saadant forbud.
|
|
58 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the application must be dismissed in its entirety.
|
47 Van Megen bestrider Kommissionens argument om, at den har vaeret i tvivl om, hvorvidt der kunne tilregnes Tenimport en overtraedelse af traktaten. Sagsoegeren finder, at en boede for en overtraedelse, der betragtes som bevist, ikke kan afhaenge af graden af tvivl, der bestaar i forbindelse med Kommissionens vurdering.
|
|
|
48 Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at den i tilstraekkelig grad har begrundet stoerrelsen af den boede, sagsoegeren er paalagt. Sagsoegerens deltagelse i overtraedelsen er beskrevet i 24., 25., 70. og 76. betragtning til beslutningen. Hvad angaar stoerrelsen af boederne har Kommissionen, som anfoert i 78. betragtning til beslutningen, fastsat disse netop under hensyn til, hvor aktivt hver forhandler har deltaget i overtraedelsen. Den har ligeledes vurderet de forskellige forhandleres rolle »i sammenhaeng med Tretorn's generelle politik bestaaende i et forbud mod enhver eksport af Tretorn's produkter«. Det er ud fra disse overvejelser, at det kun er Tretorn, Kommissionen har paalagt en betydelig boede i forhold til dens omsaetning. Derimod har den kun paalagt forhandlerne en mindre, skoensmaessigt fastsat boede. Grundlaget for denne beslutning er, at Tretorn har vaeret den hovedansvarlige, hvorimod forhandlernes ansvar blot har bestaaet i et samarbejde om anvendelsen af det af Tretorn ledede system. Kommissionen fremhaever, at den ikke har fundet det noedvendigt at sondre mellem forhandlerne, da der var tale om et samarbejde om anvendelsen af samme system, og da de forventede boeder skoensmaessigt var fastsat til et mindre beloeb.
|
|
|
49 Kommissionen havde gjort en undtagelse hvad angaar Tenimport, den belgiske forhandler, fordi Kommissionen ikke mente at vaere i besiddelse af lige saa gode beviser for dette selskabs deltagelse i gennemfoerelsen af Tretorn's politik. Det eneste dokument, Kommissionen var i besiddelse af, var en telefax af 27. februar 1989 fra Tenimport til Tretorn. Heri klager Tenimport over den »utrolige« pris paa Tretorn-tennisbolde, der sendes via Belgien til Italien, og kraever oplyst, hvorledes saadanne priser kunne anvendes. Kommissionen har paa dette grundlag fastslaaet, at Tenimport's fortolkning heraf, nemlig at firmaet kun forhandlede priser med Tretorn, ikke var helt usandsynlig. I telefaxen af 16. juli 1987 og det interne notat af 20. juni 1988 vedroerende sagsoegeren er der derimod ikke tale om priser, men alene om, at der paa det nederlandske marked dukkede tennisbolde op, der ikke hidroerte fra sagsoegeren, og om samarbejdet mellem Tretorn og sagsoegeren med henblik paa at fastslaa, hvor parallelimporten havde sin oprindelse. Disse dokumenter har saaledes et helt andet indhold end Tenimport's telefax.
|
|
|
50 Kommissionen goer indsigelse mod sagsoegerens argument om, at dette selskab har fremfoert samme forsvar som Tenimport. Som det er anfoert i 77. betragtning til beslutningen, har Tenimport under hoeringen bekraeftet, at Tretorn har begaaet en overtraedelse. Tenimport har ogsaa herefter samarbejdet med Kommissionen om undersoegelsen. Dernaest fremgaar det af 77. betragtning, at Tenimport foeler sig straffet af Tretorn, som skulle have afbrudt forhandlingsaftalen, fordi Tenimport har afvist at samarbejde i forbindelse med eksportforbuddet. Under alle omstaendigheder behoever sagsoegeren ikke at forsvare Tenimport, som ikke har anlagt sag til proevelse af den anfaegtede beslutning.
|
|
|
Rettens bemaerkninger
|
|
|
51 Ifoelge fast retspraksis har pligten til at begrunde en individuel beslutning til formaal at goere det muligt for Faellesskabets retsinstanser at efterproeve beslutningens lovlighed og at give den beroerte de oplysninger, ved hjaelp af hvilke det kan fastslaas, om der er grundlag for beslutningen, eller om der foreligger en saadan fejl, at den kan anfaegtes. Omfanget af begrundelsespligten afhaenger af arten af den paagaeldende retsakt og den sammenhaeng, hvori den er vedtaget (jf. f.eks. Rettens dom af 9.11.1994, sag T-46/92, Scottish Football mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1039, praemis 19). Ydermere udgoer en beslutning et hele, og hver del maa laeses i lyset af de oevrige dele (jf. Rettens dom af 6.4.1995, sag T-150/89, Martinelli mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1165, praemis 66).
|
|
|
52 I naervaerende sag har Kommissionen klart anfoert i beslutningen, i hvilket omfang hver forhandler har deltaget i Tretorn's politik, samt de elementer, den har stoettet sig paa ved fastlaeggelsen af denne deltagelse. Hvad angaar sagsoegeren fremgaar dennes deltagelse navnlig af 24., 25., 57., 70., 76., 77. og 78. betragtning, og af beslutningens artikel 1, stk. 6. Det foelger af gennemgangen ovenfor i praemis 36-44, at Kommissionen har understoettet og begrundet sin beslutning i tilstraekkeligt omfang, idet den har fastslaaet, at sagsoegeren har deltaget i indberetning og undersoegelse af tilfaelde af parallelimport af Tretorn-tennisbolde med henblik paa gennemfoerelse af Tretorn's politik.
|
|
|
53 Hvad angaar boedens stoerrelse bemaerkes, at da boederne ifoelge retspraksis udgoer et instrument i Kommissionens konkurrencepolitik, boer den derfor have et vist skoen ved udmaalingen af boederne, saaledes at virksomhederne tilskyndes til at overholde konkurrencereglerne (jf. ovennaevnte dom i sagen Martinelli mod Kommissionen, praemis 59).
|
|
|
54 Det foelger af beslutningens artikel 2, stk. 1, at Kommissionen har paalagt Tretorn's forhandlere en mindre, skoensmaessigt fastsat boede. Det skal ligeledes bemaerkes, at forhandlerne alle har deltaget i et samarbejde omkring anvendelsen af dette system. I en saadan situation er Kommissionen hverken forpligtet til at sondre mellem de forskellige forhandlere, eller til specielt for hver forhandler at begrunde stoerrelsen af den boede, den paagaeldende er blevet paalagt. Det foelger heraf, at Kommissionen ikke har overskredet graenserne for sit skoen.
|
|
|
55 Hvad angaar sagsoegerens argument om, at der ikke er grundlag for at paalaegge denne en sanktion paa grund af de to telefonindberetningers lejlighedsvise og underordnede karakter fremgaar det ovenfor af praemis 43, at sagsoegerens deltagelse i Tretorn's politik maa betegnes som aktiv. Kommissionen har saaledes med rette ikke lagt dette argument fra sagsoegerens side til grund. I denne sammenhaeng skal det ligeledes bemaerkes, at det fremgaar af fast retspraksis, at selv om Kommissionen i henhold til traktatens artikel 190 er forpligtet til at begrunde sine beslutninger og herved anfoere de faktiske og retlige omstaendigheder, som er afgoerende for foranstaltningens lovlighed, samt de betragtninger, der har foert til dens beslutning, kraeves det ikke, at den imoedegaar samtlige faktiske og retlige indsigelser, der er rejst af hver enkelt beroert under den administrative procedure (jf. bl.a. Rettens dom af 6.4.1995, sag T-149/89, Sotralentz mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1127, praemis 73).
|
|
|
56 Endelig kan sagsoegeren ikke med foeje paaberaabe sig det forhold, at Tenimport ikke er blevet paalagt en boede. En sagsoeger kan ikke undgaa en sanktion for overtraedelse af traktatens artikel 85 ved at henvise til et saadant forhold, naar det ikke er blevet forelagt Faellesskabets retsinstanser (jf. Domstolens dom af 31.3.1993, forenede sager C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 og C-125/85 - C-129/85, Ahlstroem Osakeyhtioe m.fl. mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 1307, praemis 197, og ovennaevnte dom i sagen Dunlop Slazenger mod Kommissionen, praemis 176).
|
|
|
57 Paastanden om ophaevelse af boeden maa herefter afvises.
|
|
|
58 Det foelger af det anfoerte, at Kommissionen maa frifindes.
|