91/153/EEC: Commission Decision of 11 January 1991 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.624 - Vichy) (Only the French text is authentic)

• Articles: 2

Article 1

Following a preliminary examination pursuant to Article 15 (6) of Regulation No 17, the Commission is of the opinion that, as regards the provisions of the agreements concluded between Société d'Hygiène Dermatologique de Vichy and wholesaler-distributors and retail pharmacists, in so far as the said agreements provide for the exclusive distribution of Vichy cosmetic products through pharmacies, i.e. by virtue of the fact that the approval of authorized distributors of Vichy products is subject to their having the status of dispensing chemist, Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty applies and that application of Article 85 (3) is not justified.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to Société d'Hygiène Dermatologique de Vichy, 28 Rue du Président Wilson, F-03201 Vichy, France. Done at Brussels, 11 January 1991. For the Commission

Leon BRITTAN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62. (2) OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63. (3) Decision No 87-D 15 of the conseil de la Concurrence of 9 June 1987. (4) Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal of 28 January 1988. (5) Judgment of the Court of Cassaton of 25 April 1989. (6) In the published version of the Decision, some information has hereinafter been omitted, pursuant to the provisions of Article 21 of Regulation No 17 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets. (7) Selective distribution systems in the Community from the point of view of competition policy. The case of perfumes and cosmetic products. André-Paul Weber, CERESSEC 1988 (in French). (8) Case 26/76 Metro I [1977] European Court Report 1875; Case 253/78 Giry and Guerlain [1980] European Court Report 2327; Case 99/79 Lancôme Etos [1980] European Court Report 2511; Joined Cases 25 and 26/84 Ford [1985] European Court Report 2736; Case 75/84 Metro II [1986] European Court Report 3021; Case 243/83 Binon [1985] European Court Report 2015. (9) Case 31/80 [1980] European Court Report 3775. (10) Ibid. (11) See footnote 4. (12) OJ No L 18, 23. 1. 1990, p. 35. (13) See footnote 4. (14) See footnote 12.