Resumen de Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV (sowie § 1 GWB) und Verkaufsverbote auf (digitalen) Drittplattformen
Der Beitrag arbeitet, ausgehend von der Entscheidung des EuGH vom 06.12.2017, C-230/16 – Coty Germany/Parfümerie Akzente, Beurteilungskriterien heraus, nach denen zu beurteilen ist, ob eine Wettbewerbsbeschränkung i. S. von Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV durch die vertragliche Einschränkung des Händlers beim Verkauf in einem selektiven Vertriebssystem zur Sicherstellung des Luxusimages eines Produkts sachlich gerechtfertigt ist. Als eine solche Einschränkung wird insbesondere das Verbot untersucht, Drittplattformen als Vertriebskanal einzuschalten.Modification of Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique-CasePursuing the objective, to preserve „the luxury image and the prestige value of a product”, can be of legitimate interest of the producer. Therefore a vertical restraint of competition determined by a selective distribution system of luxury products can be justified. Hence, also a contractual ban to engage third-party-platforms in a recognisable way, which causes a restrain of competition, can be justified in order to protect the legitimate interest of a producer, to preserve the luxury image of its products. Thereby the ECJ modified the criteria of the Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique-Case, in which it was stated that preserving a prestige character of a product cannot be of legitimate interest to justify a restraint of competition. This constitutes the quintessence of the ECJ ruling regarding Coty Germany/Parfümerie Akzente. Luxury Products are recognised as objects, which an average consumer does not need to cover an ordinary standard of living. In this respect, it has to be clarified whether a typically informed, adequately attentive and rational average consumer is able to differ the regarded product from a similar but mere average product in this category.
