Recent developments regarding resale price maintenance
On 13 February 2004, the administrative court of the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment between Secon Group BV against the Director-General of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa), whereby Chilly BV and Basilicum BV have presented themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.
As stated, this concerns a ruling on resale price maintenance in which the Court endorses the practice as it has been shaped by the NMa for some time 1).
This case primarily concerned the fact that Secon, which markets the jeans brand G-Star, among other things, refused at some point to supply Basilicum and Chilly because they did not agree with the resale prohibition as laid down in the general terms of Secon was included. In response to this, both parties submitted a complaint to the NMa in 1998. The NMa, in turn, not only assessed the general terms and conditions on the aforementioned point, but also commented on the (minimum) recommended prices included in the general terms and conditions. The NMa ruled that both the resale ban and the ‘recommended’ prices were in violation of Article 6 of the Competition Act (Mw). After Secon lodged an objection against the aforementioned decision, which decision was subsequently upheld by the NMa, Secon lodged an appeal on 28 January 2002 with the District Court of Rotterdam. As stated, minimum recommended prices were included in the general terms and conditions, with one version of the general terms and conditions stipulating that this was not allowed to be deviated from, unless written permission was given by Secon. Another version stipulated that markdowns were not allowed without Secon’s permission.
The Court is of the opinion that the minimum recommended prices are anti-competitive in nature due to the fact that they affect the company in essential aspects of its business policy. The Court therefore ruled that there was prohibited resale price maintenance. The fact that there was also a resale ban reinforced the fact that there was an impermissible violation of company policy. With regard to the question of whether the general terms and conditions are a unilateral legal act or whether this should have been regarded as an agreement, the Court notes that not only agreements fall within the scope of Article 6 Mw, but also mutually agreed facts and behaviour. The Court therefore rules that general terms and conditions also fall under 6 Mw. With regard to the question of whether the anti-competitive provisions also have an appreciable effect, the Court notes that this is irrelevant since these are hardcore restrictions from which no deviation may be made in any case. Reference is made to the settled case law of the Court of Justice.
1) See also current affairs competition law number 4/May 2004 with the note from RM
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.