This Decision is addressed to: Comité français d'organisation de la Coupe du monde de football 1998 (CFO) 23-25 Rue de Berri F - 75008 Paris.
This Decision is enforceable pursuant to Article 256 of the EC Treaty.
Done at Brussels, 20 July 1999.
For the Commission
Karel VAN MIERT
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62.
(2) OJ L 148, 15.6.1999, p. 5.
(3) OJ 127, 20.8.1963, p. 2268/63.
(4) Such approval did not, however, concern the arrangements at issue in this Decision.
(5) Article 34 of FIFA Regulation "Coupe du Monde de la FIFA 1998" of 31 May 1995.
(6) Made up of football licence holders and club members in France.
(7) For example, youth programmes.
(8) UEFA (l'Union des associations européennes de football) organises various football competitions in Europe. Its members include (inter alia) all national football federations in the EEA.
(9) Relating exclusively to matches involving the participation of at least one representative team based in the UEFA zone.
(10) Pass France 98 relating to matches taking place at the Saint-Denis stadium did not entitle the purchaser to attend the opening match of the tournament. Pass France 98 for matches taking place at the Lyons and Nantes stadiums allowed access only to all first-phase matches given that no round of 16 matches took place in those stadiums.
(11) As confirmed by the CFO in its letter of 4 June 1998 (Annex 3), responding to the Commission's formal request for information of 15 May 1998.
(12) Only federations whose teams qualified for second-phase matches received significant allocations of tickets. Such allocations could only take place after the identities of teams participating in second-phase matches became known.
(13) The figures do not therefore reflect FIFA's allocation of tickets made after the completion of the first phase of the competition on 26 June 1998.
(14) See CFO response of 27 January 1998 to the Commission's request for information of 15 January 1998.
(15) See CFO response of 4 June 1998 to the Commission's request for information of 15 May 1998.
(16) See point (b) at page 3 of the CFO's letter to the Commission of 11 June 1998.
(17) See Commission letter of 20 February 1998 to the CFO asking it to bring an end to what the Commission considered abusive practices under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.
(18) See recital 28.
(19) See lnternet document http://www.france98.com/english/tickets/faq.html of 13 August 1998, at question 10. These arrangements were reaffirmed in various CFO press releases which indicated that CFO sales in 1996 and 1997 were aimed specifically at the general public resident in France.
(20) See Internet document http://www.france98.com/english/tickets/out_france.html of 31 August 1998.
(21) As of 1 April 1997, all Pass France 98 relating to matches taking place at eight of the is World Cup stadiums had been sold. Only a limited number of Category 1 Pass France 98 for matches taking place at the Montpellier and Saint-Etienne stadiums remained available for sale. All such remaining tickets were sold by 27 May 1997.
(22) See Article 3(4)(b) and (c), of the 1985 Convention.
(23) "Recommandations relative à des lignes directrices pour le contrôle de la vente des billets lors de rencontres à haul risque (adoptée à la 5e réunion du Comité permanent de la convention européenne sur la violence les débordements de spectateurs lors de manifestations sportives et notamment de matches de football 1985)", Groupe de travail ad hoc sur les problèmes pratiques (Strasbourg, 14 novembre 1996).
(24) See CFO letter of 4 June 1998 (point 24), responding to the Commission's formal request for information of 15 May 1998.
(25) See letter from the CFO to the Commission dated 11 June 1998 (page 3, point (b)).
(26) Although no explanation is given, the CFO arrived at a similar conclusion in relation to ticket sales by European tour operators in its notification to the Commission of 11 June: "[Les tour-operateurs] forment un marché spécifique .... Le marche peut donc, selon le CFO, être défini comme le marché de la vente de billets pour la Coupe du Monde 1998 par les professionnels du tourisme" (at section 6.1).
(27) See also footnote 26.
(28) Blind sales of such tickets can be contrasted with those of tickets relating to first-phase matches which, in order to maximise the participation of supporters, were packaged as Pass France 98.
(29) Evidenced by the outcome of CFO sales to EEA countries from 22 April 1998 when 45 % of tickets were sold to consumers outside France.
(30) See recitals 25 and 26, while some 38 % of individual entry tickets sold by the CFO after 22 April 1998 were purchased by the general public providing addresses outside France but in countries whose teams had qualified for the finals competition, only 10 % of entry tickets sold after this date could be purchased by supporters of teams participating in any given match. As such, a significant proportion of the general public outside France were interested to attend matches not involving the participation of their national team.
(31) Which would have made the bundling of anything other than a very small number of tickets into Pass France 98 type-products impossible.
(32) Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T/83/91 Tetra Pak II [1994] ECR II-755, at paragraphs 114 and 115. In Case 7/82 GVL [1983] ECR 483, the Court of Justice had previously acknowledged the scope of a monopolist's special responsibility in relation to discriminatory conduct on grounds of nationality or residence. The Court had stated (inter alia): "Such a refusal [to manage rights] by an undertaking having a de facto monopoly to provide its services for all those who may be in need of them but who do not come within a certain category of persons defined by the undertaking on the basis of nationality or residence must be regarded as an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 86 of the Treaty" (at paragraph 56).
(33) Responding to the Commission's formal request for information of 15 January 1998.
(34) Examples include use of poste restante or embassy services.
(35) Given the emphasis which the CFO placed in its sales information on the requirement to be resident in France and the advice given to the general public that it would not supply to the non-French public, it is open to doubt whether residents abroad would have been permitted by the CFO to avail themselves of these alternatives in practice.
(36) All comments by the CFO in this regard are equally pertinent to the application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.
(37) In this context, the CFO argued that Article 82 must be read in the light of Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty, which requires that competition in the internal market is not distorted.
(38) Case 6/72 Continental Can [1973] ECR 215 at paragraph 26: The Court held that Article 82 "is not only aimed at practices which may cause damage to consumers directly, but also at those which are detrimental to them through their impact on an effective competition structure".
(39) For example, cases concerning excessive pricing require an assessment of the extent to which (if at all) a dominant undertaking charged a price which was excessive in relation to the economic value of the product or service. Hence, the extent to which that undertaking was able to obtain a commercial advantage, which it otherwise would not have been able to obtain under conditions of normal competition, must usually be determined before any conclusions concerning excessive pricing can be drawn.
(40) Cases cited by the CFO: Case 41/90 Hofner [1991] ECR 1979 and Case 179/90 Merci [1991] 5889.
(41) See footnote 40.
(42) See CFO letter of 4 June 1998 (point 24), responding to the Commission's formal request for information of 15 May 1998.
(43) It should be noted further that at the time of the notification the CFO had already sold all Pass France 98 to the general public under the arrangements in question.
(44) At section 4.1(ii) of the CFO's notification of 11 June 1997.
