Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:38
Date: 2007-01-18
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Exclusive agreements
Concepts: Networks in the motor vehicle sector
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Not allowed – Block exemption – Agreements in the motor industry – Regulation No 1400/2002 – Agreement containing an express termination clause (Art. 81(3) EC; Commission Regulation No 1400/2002, Arts 2(1) and 3(6)) There is no no provision in Regulation No 1400/2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector which prohibits the parties to an agreement falling within the scope of that regulation from providing for an express termination clause under which such an agreement can be terminated by the supplier as of right and without notice in the event of a breach by the distributor of one of the contractual obligations referred to in that clause, with the result that the validity of such a clause is governed in principle not by the regulation but by national law alone. Where a supplier terminates a motor vehicle distribution agreement under an express termination clause, compliance with the conditions for application of the block exemption introduced by Regulation No 1400/2002 requires not only that that supplier indicate in writing the reasons for termination but also that the independent expert, arbitrator or national court to whom the distributor has the right, under Article 3(6) of that regulation, to refer a challenge to the validity of that termination should be in a position to exercise an effective review of those reasons. In the absence of Community legislation on the question whether the intervention of an independent expert, arbitrator or a national court should precede termination or whether the effects of that termination should be suspended pending a decision as to its validity, since there is no provision in Regulation No 1400/2002 containing such a requirement, it is for the legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). Consequently, Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1400/2002 is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that an agreement falling within the scope of that regulation contains an express termination clause, under which such an agreement can be terminated by the supplier as of right and without notice in the event of a breach by the distributor of one of the contractual obligations referred to in that clause, does not have the effect of rendering the block exemption provided for in Article 2(1) of that regulation inapplicable to that agreement. (see paras 27-28, 30, 34, 37, operative part)