Judgment_paragraph 2 · Viho Europe BV v Commission of the European Communities (C-73/95 P)

2According to the findings of the Court of First Instance in the contested judgment:1. The applicant, Viho Europe BV (hereinafter “Viho”), a company incorporated under Netherlands law, markets office equipment on a wholesale basis and imports and exports that equipment....4. Parker Pen Ltd (hereinafter “Parker”), a company incorporated under English law, produces a wide range of writing utensils, which it sells throughout Europe through subsidiary companies or independent distributors. The sale and marketing of Parker products through its subsidiaries, and the staff policy of its subsidiaries, are controlled by an area team of three directors, namely an Area Director, a Finance Director and a Marketing Director. The Area Director is a member of the board of the parent company.5. Having attempted without success to enter into business relations with Parker and to obtain Parker products on conditions equivalent to those granted to Parker's subsidiaries and independent distributors, Viho lodged a complaint on 19 May 1988 under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87, hereinafter “Regulation No 17”), in which it complained that Parker was prohibiting the export of its products by its distributors, dividing the common market into national markets of the Member States, and maintaining artificially high prices for Parker products on those national markets.6. Following that complaint the Commission initiated an administrative procedure to examine the agreements between Parker and its independent distributors.7. On 22 May 1991 Viho lodged another complaint against Parker, which was registered at the Commission on 29 May 1991, in which it claimed that the distribution policy pursued by Parker whereby it required its subsidiaries to restrict the distribution of Parker products to their allocated territories constituted an infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty (now the EC Treaty, hereinafter “the Treaty”).8. Following Parker's observations submitted on 16 April and 31 May 1991 in response to the Statement of Objections sent to it by the Commission on 21 January 1991 in connection with the investigation of the agreements between Parker and its independent distributors, a hearing took place in Brussels on 4 June 1991 at which the representatives of Viho, API, Herlitz and Parker took part.9. In its additional observations submitted on 21 June 1991 at the request of the Commission, Parker accepted that, within the Parker group, requests for supplies from local customers were referred to the local Parker subsidiary, because that company was best placed to meet such requests. That is why a request by Viho, a Netherlands company, for supplies from Parker's German subsidiary would have been referred by the latter to Parker's Netherlands subsidiary, whose task it was to provide the supplies requested.10. On 5 March 1992 the Commission informed Viho, pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 47), that it intended to reject the complaint of 22 May 1991 on the ground that Parker's subsidiary companies were wholly dependent on Parker Pen UK and enjoyed no real autonomy. The Commission considered that the distribution system implemented by Parker remained within the limits which the Court of Justice defined as excluding the applicability of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, and stated that it did not see how that distribution system went beyond a normal allocation of tasks within a group of undertakings. It also stated that before any other conclusion could be reached, it would be necessary to carry out fresh inquiries and investigations.11. In its observations sent to the Commission on 6 April 1992 Viho disputed that the Parker group's policy of referring inquiries could constitute a purely internal measure, since it deprived third parties of the freedom to obtain supplies from where they wished within the common market and it obliged them to obtain supplies exclusively from the subsidiary in the place where they were established. Although nothing prevented a group from freely organizing its distribution by entrusting a subsidiary company with the marketing of its products in a Member State, it could not ... lawfully compel purchasers to obtain supplies exclusively from a given subsidiary.12. On 15 July 1992 the Commission, in response to a complaint lodged by Viho on 19 May 1988, adopted Decision 92/426/EEC relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.725 — Viho/Parker Pen, OJ 1992 L 233, p. 27) in which it found that Parker and Herlitz had infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty by including an export ban in an agreement concluded between them and also imposed a fine of ECU 700000 on Parker and a fine of ECU 40000 on Herlitz. The actions contesting that decision brought by Herlitz and Parker on 16 and 24 September 1992 respectively were the subject of two judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance on 14 July 1994 (Case T-66/92 Herlitz v Commission and Case T-77/92 Parker v Commission [1994] ECR II-531 and II-549), which have in the meantime become final.The contested decision13. On 30 September 1992 the Commission rejected Viho's complaint of 22 May 1991. In its decision the Commission found that the integrated distribution system set up by Parker to sell its products in Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands through subsidiary companies established there fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice for the non-applicability of Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the grounds that “the subsidiaries and the parent company form one economic unit within which the subsidiaries do not enjoy real autonomy in determining their course of action in the market” and moreover that “the assignment of a specific distribution area to each of the Parker subsidiaries does not exceed the limits of what can normally be regarded as necessary for the purpose of a proper distribution of tasks within a group”. The Commission also found that Parker was entitled to deny Viho similar prices and terms to those granted to its independent distributors without thereby infringing the ban on restrictive practices.’