The seemingly innocuous alphanumeric code IV 33542 represents a significant case in the history of European Union competition law. This case, involving Parfums Givenchy and ultimately resulting in Commission Decision 92/428/EEC of 24 July 1992, provides a fascinating glimpse into the EU's early efforts to regulate anti-competitive practices within the burgeoning European single market. While the specifics of the original documents (represented here as "[object Object]") are unavailable, the case number and the Commission Decision itself offer a framework to reconstruct the likely nature of the complaint and the Commission's response. This article will explore the context of the case, the potential issues at hand, the likely arguments presented by both sides, and the broader implications of the decision for competition law within the EU.
The Context: Early Stages of EU Competition Policy
The early 1990s marked a crucial period for the European Union. The Single European Act of 1987 had set in motion the ambitious project of creating a truly integrated internal market, eliminating barriers to trade and fostering competition. This required a robust and effective competition policy to prevent the emergence of monopolies and cartels that could stifle innovation and harm consumers. The Commission, responsible for enforcing Article 85 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) – the predecessor to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – was actively pursuing cases to demonstrate its commitment to fair competition. This commitment was essential to building trust in the new single market and ensuring its success. Case IV 33542, involving the well-known luxury brand Parfums Givenchy, fits squarely within this context.
The Parties Involved: Parfums Givenchy and the EU Commission
Parfums Givenchy, a prominent player in the high-end cosmetics industry, found itself under the scrutiny of the European Commission. The Commission, as the guardian of EU competition law, investigated the company's practices to determine whether they violated Article 85 of the EEC Treaty. This article prohibited agreements between undertakings that could restrict competition within the common market. The specific nature of the alleged violation remains unknown without access to the original documents, but we can speculate based on the common types of anti-competitive practices targeted by the Commission at the time.
Potential Anti-Competitive Practices: Speculation Based on Common Violations
Given the nature of the luxury goods market, several potential anti-competitive practices could have been at the heart of Case IV 33542. These include:
* Vertical Restraints: Givenchy may have imposed restrictions on its distributors, such as setting minimum resale prices (resale price maintenance), limiting the territories in which they could sell products (exclusive territories), or prohibiting them from selling to certain customers (selective distribution). Such practices can limit competition among retailers and ultimately harm consumers by reducing choice and increasing prices.
* Horizontal Restraints: If Givenchy was involved in agreements with competitors, such as price-fixing or market-sharing arrangements, this would have constituted a serious violation of Article 85. Such agreements are explicitly prohibited as they directly eliminate competition and harm consumer welfare.
* Abuse of a Dominant Position: If Givenchy held a dominant position in a particular market segment (e.g., a specific type of lipstick like the "Givenchy Le Rouge Interdit Intense Silk Lipstick" mentioned), the Commission may have investigated whether it abused that position by engaging in practices such as predatory pricing, refusing to supply certain retailers, or imposing unfair trading conditions.
current url：https://ztibam.e351c.com/news/iv-33542-givenchy-64318
adidas weiß robert geiß burberry cashmere scarf made in scotland