Competition bans on distributors and franchisees apply if they comply with cartel and abuse of dominance rules. As a general rule, agreements that target or cause restrictions on competition are prohibited by cartel law, i.e. by the German Anti-Competition Restrictions Act (GWB) and by Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE). 69 The Commission concludes that the Tribunal did not find any dysfunction of the law and that it gave sufficient reason for its judgment, since the Commission has sufficiently demonstrated, from a legal point of view, that there was an agreement between the coordinates of the CD and Nintendo to limit parallel trade. The Commission further argues that Activision Blizzard intends, through its arguments, to ask the Court to verify the facts, which is inadmissible. Franchise agreements may be terminated under agency law (mutatis mutandis). However, in the practical case, longer periods may apply, for example. B if the franchisee has made significant investments as a result of the supplier`s product. 29 Activision Blizzard concludes that, to the extent that it did not conduct this analysis, the Tribunal could not find without error of law that the Commission had sufficiently demonstrated that CD-Contact Data`s conduct was intended to limit passive sales. 13 After the Tribunal indicated, in point 53 of the impugned judgment, that, in the case of CD coordinates, the Commission refers only to the conclusion of an agreement, the Tribunal indicated, in Letter 54 of that judgment, that in the absence of direct written evidence of a written agreement between Nintendo and CD-coordinated on the limitation of passive exports , the Tribunal had found that CD-Contact Data`s participation in an agreement contrary to Article 81, paragraph 1, CE, was demonstrated by its conduct, as shown by their correspondence. 85 It follows from the above considerations that the impugned judgment was motivated by sufficient grounds to verify the judgment and that Activision Blizzard is aware of the reasons that led the Tribunal to decide that it participated in an agreement to restrict parallel trade. 78 It follows from Rule 52 of the contested judgment that the Tribunal took into account the fact that the distribution agreement between Nintendo and CD-Contact Data did not contain any prohibited clause, unlike Nintendo`s previous distribution agreements with other distributors. 2.
Competition – agreements, decisions and joint practices – agreements between companies – proof of the existence of an agreement Burghard Piltz, expert of the IDI sales countries for Germany 61 In addition, according to Activision Blizzard, the Tribunal did not take into account relevant issues such as: the lack of clear evidence that Nintendo imposed this directive on contact data on CD; Lack of surveillance system or sanctions against CD coordinates; the difference between the wording of the distribution agreement between Nintendo and the coordinates of CDs compared to agreements with other distributors; and the fact that the relationship between Nintendo and its exclusive distributors was already closely monitored two years before Contact Data joined one of Nintendo`s distributors.