85 ( 3 ) ( JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF 10 JULY 1980 IN THE " PERFUMES " CASES , CASE 99/79 ( 1980 ) ECR 2511 ) .
SABA'S AGREEMENTS DO IMPOSE SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THIS NATURE .
RETAILERS MUST BE WILLING AND ABLE TO ORDER AND SELL SABA PRODUCTS REGULARLY , TO CARRY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE WHOLE SABA RANGE AND TO KEEP SUFFICIENT STOCKS TO ENSURE PROMPT DELIVERY TO CUSTOMERS . WHOLESALERS NOT SUPPLIED DIRECT BY SABA ARE LIKEWISE REQUIRED TO CARRY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE WHOLE SABA RANGE . WHOLESALERS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY SUPPLIED DIRECT BY SABA WHO SIGN THE SABA COOPERATION AGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED , UNDER THAT AGREEMENT , TO CARRY THE WHOLE SABA RANGE AND ALSO TO AGREE AN ANNUAL SALES CONTRACT WITH SABA AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY YEAR CONTAINING BINDING SALES TARGETS BY PRODUCT AND NUMBER OF UNITS .
THE OBLIGATIONS GO BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF DEALERS AND THEIR SALES STAFF AND THE SUITABILITY OF THEIR TRADING PREMISES WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNICALLY-SOPHISTICATED PRODUCTS SUCH AS THOSE OF THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY . THERE ARE ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING THE DEALER'S SALES EFFORT , WITH WHICH SABA HOPES TO BOOST SALES OF ITS PRODUCTS . THESE OBLIGATIONS ARE LIKELY TO KEEP MANY DEALERS WHO , THOUGH FULFILLING THE QUALITATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA , ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO ASSUME THE ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS , OUT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF SABA PRODUCTS .
3 . THESE OBLIGATIONS IN TERMS OF SALES EFFORT ALSO RESTRICT DEALERS WHO JOIN THE NETWORK IN THEIR COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR . BY FORCING THEM TO MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO PROMOTE SABA PRODUCTS , THEY RESTRICT THE DEALERS' FREEDOM TO PURSUE THEIR OWN SALES POLICY VIS-A-VIS THEIR RETAILER OR CONSUMER CUSTOMERS , TAKING ADVANTAGE OF COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS .
4 . THE POLICING OBLIGATIONS LAID UPON DEALERS WHEN SELLING TO OTHER DEALERS ( TO RECORD SERIAL NUMBERS AND CHECK WHETHER THE CUSTOMER IS LISTED ) ARE DESIGNED TO ENABLE SABA TO KEEP ITS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UNDER SURVEILLANCE . PROVIDED THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PROPER SURVEILLANCE , SUCH OBLIGATIONS ARE SIMPLY THE COROLLARY OF THE PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION WHICH THEY SEEK TO UNDERPIN AND HAVE THE SAME STATUS IN LAW ( METRO JUDGMENT , GROUND 27 ) . SINCE THE BAN ON SABA DEALERS SUPPLYING DEALERS OUTSIDE THE NETWORK HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION , THIS IS ALSO THE CASE WITH THE OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING THE POLICING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS BAN . HOWEVER , SUCH OBLIGATIONS DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ANTI-COMPETITIVE CHARACTER BECAUSE THEY REMAIN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WHAT IS STRICTLY NECESSARY :
- NUMBER RECORDING IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE MANUFACTURER IF HE IS TO BE ABLE TO TRACE BREACHES OF THE DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT AND TO KEEP THE SYSTEM INTACT . EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO INSPECT A DEALER'S RECORDS IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED BY THE AGREEMENT TO CASES OF REASONABLE