Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 September 2023 – Beevers Kaas BV v Albert Heijn België NV and Others, other party: B.A. Coöperatieve Zuivelonderneming Cono
(Case C-581/23, Beevers Kaas)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Beevers Kaas BV
Defendants: Albert Heijn België NV, Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize NV, Albert Heijn BV, Ahold België BV
Other party: B.A. Coöperatieve Zuivelonderneming Cono
Questions referred
Can the parallel imposition requirement laid down in Article 4(b)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 1 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices be regarded as met, and can a supplier who satisfies the other conditions laid down in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 therefore legitimately prohibit active sales by one of its buyers into a territory for which one other buyer has been exclusively assigned, solely on the basis of the finding that the other buyers do not actively sell into the territory? In other words: is the existence of an agreement prohibiting active sales between those other buyers and the supplier adequately proved merely on the basis of the finding that those other buyers do not actively sell into the exclusively allocated territory?
Can the parallel imposition requirement laid down in Article 4(b)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices be regarded as met, and can a supplier who satisfies the other conditions laid down in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 therefore legitimately prohibit active sales by one of its buyers into a territory for which one buyer has been exclusively assigned, where the supplier receives the acceptance of its other buyers only if and in so far as they show signs of actively selling into the territory thus exclusively allocated? Or, on the contrary, must such acceptance have been received from each of the supplier’s buyers, irrespective of whether those buyers show signs of actively selling into the exclusively allocated territory?
____________
1 OJ 2010 L 102, p. 1.