EU-domstolen
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) 7 July 1994
In Case T-43/92,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, C. P. Briet, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M. Barrington and J. Biancarelli, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 December 1993,
gives the following
Judgment
The background to the application
The complaint
The administrative procedure before the Commission
The Decision
Procedure
Forms of order sought
The claims seeking annulment of the Decision
The Decision's compliance with requirements as to form and notification
The first plea of irregularities affecting the authentication and notification of the Decision
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
The second plea that the procedure by which the Decision was adopted was irregular
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
The third plea that the Decision was adopted following an irregular administrative procedure
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
The substantive legality of the Decision
I — The general export ban
A — The existence of a general prohibition on exporting goods covered by the contracts imposed by the applicant on parties to contracts with it
(a) The existence of a general export ban in the context of the applicant's exclusive distribution system
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
(b) The existence of a general export ban under the applicant's sales agreements
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
B — The scope of the export ban
(a) The geographical area covered by the ban
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
(b) The type of products covered by the export ban
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
C — The duration of the infringement
Summaiy of the pleas in law and the main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
II — The measures implemented for the purpose of securing compliance with the general prohibition on exporting products covered by the distribution agreement
A — The pricing measures
(a) The claim that there was no concerted pricing practice
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
(b) The claim that the applicant acted autonomously in deciding its commercial policy
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
(c) The claim that there was no effect on intra-Community trade
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
B — The use of official logos and initials indicating endorsement by sporting federations
(a) The existence of a practice decided in concert with AWS
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
(b) The anti-competitive nature of the commercial practice in question
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
(c) The existence of a competitive advantage
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
Claims seeking annulment or reduction of the fine
A — The lack of precedent
Summary of the pleas in law and arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
B — The applicant's conduct during the administrative procedure before the Commission
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
C — The period of infringement
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
D — The turnover on the basis of which the fine was calculated
Summary of the pleas in law and main arguments of the parties
Assessment of the Court
E — The other factors to be taken into account in assessing the amount of the fine
(a) The Commission's alleged lack of diligence in investigating the matter
(b) The alleged absence of detriment suffered by consumers
(c) The alleged failure to give undertakings equal treatment
The claims seeking reimbursement of the expenses of providing security for payment of the fine
Costs
1 Language of the case: English.