The dispute was about the termination by the car manufacturer of an official dealer agreement due to dealer’s non-compliance with the specifications of the selective distribution network.
Following the termination of the agreement, the former dealer complied with the specifications of the selective distribution network and -considering that a new dealer agreement had been concluded- requested the acknowledgment by the Court of such conclusion by virtue of Regulation 1400/2002. Specifically, the former dealer argued that the Regulation provides the automatic conclusion of a dealer’s agreement with only one prerequisite, the compliance with the specifications of the car manufacturer.
The lawsuit was based on Regulation 1400/2002, on Greek and EU’s competition legislation and on Greek unfair competition law. Despite the above-mentioned request of the acknowledgment of the conclusion of a dealer’s agreement, the plaintiff also requested compensation for loss of profits and direct damages. Direct damages were estimated on former dealer’s costs of compliance with the car manufacturer’s specifications.
The Court ruled, among others, that the legal basis of unfair competition law was not legitimate, given that the refusal by the supplier to conclude an agreement is non an unfair action due to the application of the doctrine of freedom of contract. It also ruled that even if Regulation 1400/2002 had been infringed, the obligation to conclude an agreement is not provided by the said Regulation as a consequence of such infringement. Consequently, the claims for compensation were rejected as non-legitimate.
Moreover, the Court ruled that the adjudication of vague legal matters by the Court is not a subject of a declaratory lawsuit. Therefore, the plaintiff’s – former dealer’s request for the acknowledgment of the conclusion of a dealer’s agreement -by virtue of the above-mentioned Regulation- as a preliminary issue on which compensations claims were based, is not legitimate.
Also, the Court rejected car manufacturer’s liability during the negotiations stage, ruling that its refusal to conclude a dealer’s agreement is not against the law, while the submission of an application by the former dealer to be included to the selective distribution network and the investments made towards compliance with the specifications were freely made by the dealer in the context of the freedom of contract doctrine, which also encompasses the manufacturer’s refusal to conclude an agreement with the dealer.
The Court rejected former dealers’ lawsuit in its totality.
Nikos Grigoriadis argued for the car manufacturer.