JUDGMENT OF 10. 7. 1980 — CASE 30/78 V DISTILLERS COMPANY v COMMISSION

In Case 30/78

THE COURT composed of: H. Kutscher, President, A. O'Keeffe and A. Touffait (Presidents of Chambers), J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, G. Bosco, T. Koopmans and O. Due, Judges, Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

1. The Distillers Company Ltd (DCL) and its products

2. Distribution of DCL spirits

3. DCL's conditions of sale and price terms

4. DCL's prices and price allowances

5. Development of parallel exports

6. Complaints

7. Administrative procedure

8. The decision of the Commission of 20 December 1977

9. Steps taken by DCL following the decision of the Commission

10. Procedure before the Court of Justice

II — Conclusions of the parties

Ill — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — The application

1. The trade in Scotch whisky

2. The part of the decision concerning Scotch whisky

(a) Compliance of the price terms with the substantive requirements of Article 85 (3)

(b) Compliance of the price terms with procedural requirements under Article 85 (3)

3. The part of the decision concerning DCL' other products

4. Infringement of essential procedural requirements

B — The defence

1. The principal claim relating to the applicability of Article 85 (1) to the conditions of sale and the price terms

2. Applicability of Article 85 (3) to the price terms and the request that that part of Article 3 and the whole of Article 4 be annulled

(a) The issue of notification

(b) The effects of the differential pricing system applied by DCL to exports from the United Kingdom to other Member States of the EEC — The effect of the brewers' alleged monopoly power on the Britsh market

(c) Economic justification for the refusal to grant the price terms the benefit of the exemption under Article 85 (3)

(d) The price terms, the exclusive dealer contracts and Article 85 (3)

(e) The indispensability argument

(f) Improvement in distribution

3. The part of the decision relating to Pimm's

4. Procedural matters

C — The reply

1. Notification

2. Compliance with substantive requirements

3. Pimm's

4. Vodka

5. Infringement of essential procedural requirements

D — The rejoinder

1. Notification

2. The sole distribution contracts

3. The indispensability argument

4. DCL's suggestion that the price terms put all dealers on an equal footing

5. Characteristics of the United Kingdom market

6. DCL's analysis of the common market

7. Procedural matters

E — Addendum to the reply

F — Observations of the Commission and the interveners on the addendum

G — Observations of the interveners

(a) There was no improvement in distribution

(b) Consumers do not share the benefit

(c) The restrictions imposed are not indispensable

H — DCL's comments on the observations of the interveners

Decision

Failure to notify the price terms

Procedural irregularities alleged by the applicant

Costs