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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee