Developments in competition law
Some time ago, the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) made a groundbreaking ruling that is of great importance to all franchise organizations in the Netherlands.
Franchise agreements can be regarded as vertical agreements, which means that they are agreements between companies operating at different levels in the supply chain. The competition law for these vertical cooperation relationships, as it follows from the foregoing, every franchise organization should be by nature, is dominated in the first place by the market share of the relevant franchise organization on the “relevant market”.
The term ‘relevant market’ is not entirely unambiguous, but must in any case be distinguished into the relevant product market on the one hand and the relevant geographic market on the other. In short, the relevant product market comprises those products and/or services which, by reason of their characteristics, prices and intended use, are regarded by the end-user or customer as interchangeable or substitutable. The relevant geographic market, on the other hand, is the area within which the undertakings concerned play a role in the supply and demand of goods or services, in which the competitive conditions are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighboring areas because the conditions of competition are clearly different.1
The so-called “de minimis announcement” played a decisive role in the aforementioned decision of the Nma. The “de minimis notice” (which has already been discussed several times in this series) stipulates that there is no appreciability in the context of vertical agreements if the market share on the relevant market does not exceed 15 % and furthermore, the agreement does not contain any so-called “hard-core restrictions”.
1. Commission Notice of 9 December 1997 on the definition of the relevant market for common competition law, OJ 1997, C-372/05.
The aforementioned ruling also has consequences for provisions in the area of exclusive purchasing and non-competition, among other things. The possibilities in that context for franchise organizations can be considerably expanded. This will be discussed in more detail in one of the upcoming articles.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.