 | ||
Citation(s) (1966) Case 56/64 and 58/64, [1966] ECR 299 Similar Commission v Anic Partecipa, GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, Procureur du Roi v Benoît an, Rewe‑Zentral AG v Bundesm, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlan | ||
Consten SaRL and Grundig GmbH v Commission (1966) Case 56/64 is an EU competition law case, concerning vertical anti-competitive agreements.
Contents
Facts
Grundig GmbH wished to distribute electronic goods in France. It appointed Consten SaRL as the exclusive distributor, and guaranteed that no other wholesaler would be allowed to sell in France. The Commission viewed this as unlawful, as it was important to ensure that there were parallel imports (from one state to another).
Judgment
The ECJ held that the agreement was unlawful. It rejected the argument that allowing exclusive distributorships protected a distributor’s legitimate interest, by hypothetically preventing competitors (once the costs for initial market penetration had been spent) from free riding on the investment of advertising and marketing initially by the distributor, and then undercutting prices.