Refusal to appoint repairer not abuse of dominant position

I seem to find myself reading judgments of the Bundesgerichtshof, the German federal supreme court, more often these days than those of any other court. It's doing my scant knowledge of German a lot of good, too. They have more than their fair share of cases relating to competition in the motor industry. The latest to come to my attention (a bit tardily, I'm afraid) is case no ZR 7/09 from 30 March, in which a Daimler commercial vehicle dealer and repairer sought appointment to MAN's network too. When MAN turned the application down, the dealer claimed that it was an abuse of MAN's dominant position contrary to § 20 of the Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (law against restraints of competition). This isn't a straightforward rehash of Article 102 TFEU, as what I still think of as Article 86 is now known - but it amounts to a similar thing.

To resolve a question of abuse of a dominant position, you have to start by considering whether the undertaking concerned is in a dominant position in the market, which means taking a step back and working out what the relevant market is. The lower court had taken the view that the relevant market was the one in which customers bought services from MAN repairers - the highly brand-specific market which the Commission believes requires the strict regulation provided for under the 2010 block exemption arrangements. The BGH rejected this approach, which meant rejecting the claim.

The BGH considered that the relevant market was the market for all those products, services, and rights that enable a repairer to gain entry to the market for repair and maintenance services for commercial vehicles – the "downstream" market. The "upstream" market, as it might therefore be called, includes spare parts, diagnostic tools, repair tools, and training in brand-specific know-how as well as admission to the network.

This market is not brand-specific, according to the judgment. It is not limited to goods, services, or rights supplied by MAN, and accordingly the vehicle manufacturer did not hold a dominant position in it. Admission to the MAN was not a prerequisite for a repair shop to be active in the downstream market for repair and maintenance services. A non-authorised repair shop might not be able to do warranty work, perform services on a goodwill basis (at least, not on the basis of the manufacturer's goodwill), or participate in recall campaigns, but could still offer plenty of other. The existence of such independent repair shops did not escape the notice of the Court, and illustrated that providing these services was economically attractive. 

MAN might enjoy a big share of the downstream market for repair and maintenance services for MAN vehicles, but the Court took the view that this had no bearing on its position in the "upstream" market, the market for facilities for entry to the downstream market.

This is a rather different market analysis to that adopted by the Commission, which has tended to focus on the downstream market. Given that this is the market in which consumers are active, this is not entirely surprising, and ultimately what competition law needs to concern itself with is consumer welfare. The fact that this case involved commercial vehicles probably makes the downstream market less important, though I have to admit to not having worked through the judgment to see whether this is in fact relevant. It's certainly an interesting statement about manufacturer dominance in the repair market, and one with a surprising outcome which might prove influential in the future.