63The Commission observes that the contested decision is simply intended to restore the commercial freedom of retailers and so allow rival producers to compete on the merits of their products. The real question is whether retailers, who are ultimately paying for the freezers in their shops, should be free to stock the ice-cream brand of their choice in those freezers. The contested decision has demonstrated the dilemma faced by retailers wishing to stock other brands of ice cream. If, in order to sell non-HB ice cream, the retailer must either install an additional freezer or cease to sell HB products, he will be reluctant to sell other brands. As a result, that outlet is closed off to any rival brand, regardless of the merits of the product. The Commission considers that this dilemma is exactly the same as that which it had identified in the judgment in Langnese-Iglo v Commission, cited above, at paragraph 108, and in Case T-9/93 Scholier v Commission [1995] ECR II-1611, paragraph 84). In those judgments the Court found that the Commission was right to regard freezer exclusivity agreements as ‘contributing to making access to the market more difficult.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.