CELEX: C2005/143/25
Language: en
Date: 2005-06-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-125/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 15 March 2005 in VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S

11.6.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 143/17
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 15 March 2005 in VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S
   (Case C-125/05)
   (2005/C 143/25)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Denmark) of 15 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S and Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 (1) of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95’) to be interpreted as meaning that reasons must be stated for a supplier's termination of an agreement with a dealer on one year's notice which go beyond the supplier's reference to that provision?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               What requirement may be placed under Community law on the content of such a statement of reasons and when must such a statement be provided?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               What is the consequence of not providing a proper or timely statement of reasons?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Is Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 to be interpreted as requiring that the termination of an agreement with a dealer on one year's notice must be effected on the basis of a reorganisation plan already drawn up by the supplier?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
               What requirement can be placed under Community law on the content and form of a reorganisation plan drawn up by the supplier and when must the reorganisation plan be submitted?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative:
               Must the supplier inform the dealer whose contract has been terminated of the content of the reorganisation plan, and when and in what form must notification to the dealer be effected in a particular case?
            
         
               7.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative:
               What is the consequence of a reorganisation plan not fulfilling the requirement which may be placed on the form and content of such a plan?
            
         
               8.
            
            
               According to the Danish version of Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95, the supplier's termination of an agreement with a dealer on one year's notice presupposes that ‘… det er nødvendigt at foretage en gennemgribende reorganisering af hele forhandlernettet eller en del heraf …’ (it is necessary to reorganise radically the whole or part of the network). The word ‘necessary’ appears in all the language versions of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 but the word ‘gennemgribende’ (radically) appears only in the Danish version.
               In this context:
               What requirement may be placed on the nature of the reorganisation so that the supplier is able to terminate the dealer's contract on one year's notice under Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95?
            
         
               9.
            
            
               In assessing whether the conditions — for the supplier to be able to terminate the agreement on one year's notice under Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 — are satisfied, is it of importance what the economic consequences would be for the supplier if it had terminated the dealer's contract on two years' notice?
            
         
               10.
            
            
               Who bears the burden of proving that the conditions for the supplier being able to terminate the agreement on one year's notice under Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 are satisfied, and how can such a burden of proof be lifted?
            
         
               11.
            
            
               Is Article 5(3) of Group Exemption Regulation No 1475/95 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions — for the supplier to be able to terminate the agreement on one year's notice under that provision — can be satisfied simply on the grounds that the implementation of Group Exemption Regulation No 1400/2002 in itself could have necessitated a radical reorganisation of the supplier's dealer network?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 145 of 29.6.1995, p. 25.