C-31/80

JUDGMENT OF 11. 12. 1980 — CASE 31/80

to grant an exemption in respect of been the subject of such a decision such agreements under Article 85 (3). may rely on that decision as against third parties who claim that the 2. A letter signed by an official of the agreement is void on the basis of Commission indicating that there is Article 85 (2). no reason for the Commission to take 4. The behaviour of an undertaking may action pursuant to Article 85 (1) of be considered as an abuse of a the EEC Treaty against a distribution dominant position within the meaning system which has been notified to it, of Article 86 of the Treaty where the may not be relied upon as against undertaking enjoys in a particular third parties and is not binding on the market the power to behave to an national courts. It merely constitutes appreciable extent independently of its an element of fact of which the competitors, its customers and the national courts may take account in consumers and where its behaviour on considering the compatibility of the that market, through recourse to system in question with Community methods different from those which law. condition normal competition on the 3. Decisions to grant exemption under basis of the transactions of traders, Articles 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty give hinders the maintenance or rise to rights in the sense that the development of competition and may parties to an agreement which has effect trade between Member States.

In Case 31/80

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Koophandel of the legal district of Antwerp for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

THE COURT

composed of: J. Menens de Wilmars, President, P. Pescatore and T. Koopmans (Presidents of Chambers), Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

JUDGMENT OF 11. 12. 1980 — CASE 31/80

Antwerp, that the selective distribution in the letter of 22 February 1978, network set up by L O r é a l is illegal as signed by J. E. Ferry, Director, being contrary to the Community rules for the Directorate-General for on competition. In this respect the Competition (Restrictive practices plaintiffs have however referred t o a . and abuse of dominant positions letter dated 22 February 1978 addressed Directorate), addressed to the first to L'Oréal SA by the Commission, plaintiff in the main action, binding? according to which, by reason of the small portion of the market for perfumery, beauty and toilet preparations 3. Are exemptions given in application occupied by L O r é a l in the various of Article 85 (3) to be regarded as countries and the large number of instances of toleration or do they competing undertakings of a similar size create a right which, from the point the Commission took the view that there of view of Community law, may be was no need for it to intervene under relied on against third parties, and is Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty with that the case for L'Oréal? regard to L'Oréaľs distribution system and that the matter had therefore been allowed to rest. 4. Can L'Oréaľs conduct towards third parties be regarded as an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty 4. By an order of 17 January 1980 the of Rome?" Rechtbank van Koophandel of the legal district of Antwerp decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following 5. The order containing the reference questions to the Court for a preliminary was lodged at the Court Registry on ruling: 23 January 1980.

II — W r i t t e n o b s e r v a t i o n s sub- applicability of Article 85. (3) can arise mitted to the C o u r t only if it is established that the agreements in question are contrary to Article 85 (1). However, it is clear in this A — By way of preliminary obser- case that the conditions for the vations the plaintiffs in the main application of that provision are not proceedings observe that the order fulfilled. A selective distribution system containing the reference is based on based on qualitative criteria for selection inaccurate information. The products in falls outside the sphere of application of question are not perfumery articles; they Article 85 (1) as the Commission has are not manufactured by L'Oréal SA, recognized in its decision of 21 Paris, and imported by L'Oréal NV, December 1976 (Junghans, Official Brussels; they are not luxury articles. Journal 1977 L 30, paragraphs 21 to 23) The plaintiffs emphasize in particular and as the Court has accepted in its that the selection of hairdressers made by judgment of 25 October 1977 (Case L'Oréal for the sale of its hair-care 26/76, Metro v Commission [1977] ECR products is based solely on objective 1875, paragraphs 20 and 27. The small qualitative criteria intended to guarantee portion of the market occupied by that the sale and use of the products in L'Oréal makes it doubly clear that there question will take place in good can be no infringement of Article 85 (1) conditions; their selection is by no means in this case as the Commission based on quantitative criteria. The emphasized in its letter of 22 February number of "Kérastase hairdressing 1978. consultants" accepted for Belgium is at present 2 556. Under the Kérastase contract concluded with these hair- dressing consultants L'Oréal undertakes Having regard to the foregoing and in inter alia to allow the hairdressing the light or the exclusive power to apply consultants the benefit of the necessary Article 85 (3) conferred upon the technical assistance to apply and to Commision by Article 9 (1) of Regu- advise with regard to the application of lation No 17, the plaintiffs propose that the products and to supply them with the reply to be given to the first question constant information regarding the should be as follows: organization of hair-care in a salon. The hairdressers for their part undertake to attend technical information days "The answer to the question whether organized by L'Oréal or to send their certain agreements — on the supposition staff, to ensure that a systematic exami- that they fall within the prohibition nation is carried out for each customer, contained in Article 85 (1) of the EEC to observe the rules for the application of Treaty -=- qualify for an exemption under the products and to promote the Article 85 (3) is a matter exclusively for collection as a whole. Hairdressing the Commission subject to a review of consultants also undertake not to supply any such decision by the Court of the products in question otherwise than Justice." to other approved Kérastase hairdressing consultants.

The said letter, acquainting L'Oréal with (c) Third question an opinion of the Commission, created for the undertaking the legitimate expectation that its agreements in their present form are compatible with Article Whilst taking the view that the question 85. The Commission is bound by its is devoid of any relevance in the context declaration unless the circumstances of these actions and is so vague that it is change in a material respect or unless it difficult to provide a reasonable answer, finds that the information supplied to it the plaintiffs suggest that the reply to be was inaccurate. The point of the second given to this question should be as question is to determine what is the follows : effect of such a letter as regards the court. In this respect the plaintiffs observe that according to the judgment "Decisions or regulations applying of 6 February 1973 (Case 48/72, Article 85 (3) — on the supposition that Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen it has any application to this case — may [1973] ECR 77, the national court must, be relied on against any person claiming unless it finds that the agreement is that an agreement is void on the basis of protected by provisional validity, decide Article 85 (2) of the EEC Treaty." whether the proceedings must be stayed so as to allow the parties to obtain the Commission's view. If the national court takes this latter course, it is bound by the (d) Fourth question Commission's viewpoint. In this case the Commission has already given an opinion on the agreements in question The plaintiffs point out that during the and as the national court has declared national proceedings there was no that it is not in a position to judge for finding of the existence in this case of a itself the cumulative effect of distribution dominant position. The selection of networks in the various Member States sellers according to "objective criteria on the present dispute, it is bound by the relating to the qualifications of the Commission's standpoint on this matter. seller" could not moreover constitute an The plaintiffs therefore suggest that the abuse (judgment of 14 February 1978, in reply to be given to the second question Case 27/76, United Brands v Commission should be as follows : [1978] ECR 207, paragraph 158). The plaintiffs accordingly propose the following reply:

which must be considered by the court It emerges from these observations that — the selection of buyers/sellers on the the Kérastase distribution system, basis of objective criteria relating to the considered in the context of all the qualifications of the seller, his staff and economic and legal circumstances, is his facilities cannot constitute an abuse contrary to Article 85. The allegedly within the meaning of Article 86 unless objective criteria for selection used by such a practice erects obstacles the effect L'Oréal in reality constitute hidden of which goes further than the objective quantitative criteria. Having regard to in view." the protection of the consumer provided for by the Belgian rules relating to cosmetic products and the Belgian rules relating to access to the occupation of hairdresser, the Kérastase distribution system, which is not open to all hair­ dressers practising in Belgium, has the effect of excluding a considerable number of hairdressers who possess all the necessary qualifications. Such exclusion is not indispensable in order to ensure the protection of the health of consumers; it stems solely from a desire to restrict competition. Moreover, if the aim of the selection practised by l'Oréal were to protect the consumer it would be difficult to see why the Kérastase distri­ B — The defendant in the main bution system should totally exclude the proceedings prefaces its reply to the first wholesale stage. L'Oréal is in fact question, which seems to it to be the prohibiting all wholesalers from distri­ most important in the context of the buting its products even if they were to main proceedings, by detailed general limit themselves to the approved hair- observations relating in particular to the dressing consultants only. The exclusion cumulative effect of the agreements of the wholesale stage makes it possible made between L'Oréal and its approved to maintain artificially sizeable sellers, to the nature of the products at differences in prices for L'Oréal products issue, to the Belgian rules for protecting between the Member States (see table on the health of consumers in the field of page 58 of the defendant's observations). cosmetics and aerosols, to the Belgian The Kérastase agreements contain other rules relating to access to the occupation restrictions on competition: hairdressers of hairdresser and other relevant rules, to are required to promote the sale of the exclusion of the stage of wholesale Kérastase products; they are also trading and parallel trading in the required to promote the whole of the Kérastase distribution system, to the range and L'Oréal reserves the right to other restrictions contained therein and, check the charges which they make. finally, to the appreciable nature of these According to the defendant in the main restrictions and to the effect on trade proceedings, these various restrictions on between Member States. Apart from competition, having regard to the cumu­ these observations relating to the lative effect of the contracts at issue in conditions for the applicability of Article the various Member States, appreciably 85 (1) the defendant in the main actions restrict competition and affect trade also puts forward observations relating to between Member States. On the the applicability of Article 85 (3).

"A selective distribution system for hair- care products, in which selection takes (b) Where it is set up on the basis of the place on the basis of qualification having fact that it is desirable that the regard to the risks which the use of the consumer should be informed by product causes the user to run is qualified specialists at the time of contrary, to Article 85 (1) when both choosing hair-care products, and Community rules and national rules where all those providing services already provide completely for the who must be considered as protection of the consumer of such objectively qualified in accordance products. To the extent to which the with national legislation are not products concerned are intended admitted to it; where, in addition, exclusively to be used by persons criteria are applied which cannot be providing a service by way of trade or described as objective since it does business it is — having regard to the not take account of the differences legislation which has been referred to between those providing services in and to national legislation governing the sector in question; where sup- access to the occupation in question, plementary obligations are imposed which permits the entry only of qualified on those who are qualified to persons — contrary to Article 85 (1) not dispense hair-care, which cannot be to admit into the distribution network all justified by the aims pursued but on persons providing such a service who the contrary constitute serious carry on their trade or business in restrictions on competition, such as conformity with national legislation the obligation to contribute to the governing access to the occupation. In promotion of sales which is imposed such a case it is also contrary to Article on those providing services whose 85 (1) to exclude wholesalers from the function is to assist the consumer distribution network. with expert knowledge and consequently in an objective manner in the choice of products available A distribution system for hair-care on the market; and, finally, when products the existence of which is wholesale trade in such products is

excluded without its being possible in the main actions refers to the opinion for such exclusion to be justified delivered by Mr Advocate General from the point of view of the aim Reischl in Joined Cases 253/78, 1 to above referred to. 3/79, 37/79 and 99/79. The letter is neither an exemption nor a negative clearance. It cannot be relied upon as against third parties and is not binding A selective distribution system which is on a national court which thus retains applied simultaneously and systematically jurisdiction to consider the legality of the in several Member States constitutes an agreements in question in the light of appreciable restriction on competition Article 85 (1). and appreciably influences trade between the states when parallel patterns of trade within the network are prevented and in particular where supply to sellers in other Having regard to that answer, the third Member States is limited by the joint question is purposeless. effect of the prohibition on exclusive importers to carry out an active sales policy outside the territory which is C — The French Government states that conceded to them, of the practical in its view a selective distribution system limitation of the opportunity for cannot be considered as compatible with approved sellers to obtain supplies in the rules of competition except to the other Member States and of the extent to which it is based on qualitative exclusion of wholesale trade in the and not quantitative criteria. However, it products in question. is for the Community authorities, subject to review by the Court of Justice, to determine the applicability of Article 85 It is impossible for an exemption to be (3) to the distribution systems at issue. obtained under Article 85 (3) for a selective distribution system which, like that which is before the court making the As regards the second question, the letter order for reference, does more than limit of 22 February 1978 is neither a negative the sale of the products in question to clearance nor an exemption. It is simply the specialized trades alone — which an expression of view by a representative would be sufficient to realize the aim of the Commission which might possibly pursued — which does not apply involve the liability of the Community objective criteria of a qualitative nature for "erroneous information". and furthermore imposes on approved sellers obligations which are not necessary in order to ensure a proper The exemptions referred to in Question distribution of the products, and which, 3 may be relied on against third parties finally, has the result of excluding but in this case there has been no parallel trade within the distribution exemption. A mere letter stating that the network or, at least, of seriously matter is being allowed to rest may not hampering it." be relied on against third parties.

First question

The letter of 22 February 1978 is merely ,an expression of opinion as the Advocate The Commission observes that the General stated in his opinion with regard question of any exemption under Article to similar letters which were the subject 85 (3) arises only when the conditions of Joined Cases 253/78 and 1 to 3/79. for the applicability of Article 85 (1) are present.

Question 3 has no relevance in the In this respect the Commission, referring context of the main proceedings. in particular to paragraph 20 of the According to the Government of the judgment in the Metro case, to which United Kingdom the only effect with reference has already been made, regard to third parties of an exemption is emphasizes that the selection of distri­ that they will be unable to invoke the butors on the basis of purely qualitative prohibition in Article 85 (1) against the criteria escapes the prohibition contained agreement in question. The exemption in Article 85 (1) if the said criteria are gives no rights which may be relied on applied uniformly and without discrim­ against third parties. The question ination to all potential distributors. On whether the parties to the agreements the contrary, when the selection referred to have any such rights in this introduces quantitative criteria there is, case is a matter for Belgian law alone. in principle, a restriction on competition.

LORÉAL v DE NIEUWE AMCK

Second question "L'Oréaľs conduct cannot be prohibited by the provisions of Article 86 of the On the basis of considerations similar to Treaty of Rome as long as L'Oréal does those which it put forward in Cases not occupy a dominant position in a 253/78, 1 to 3/79, 37/79 and 99/79, the substantial part of the common market."

JUDGMENT OF 11. 12. 1980 — CASE 31/80

III — Oral procedure the European Communities, represented by Mr Kuyper, a member of its Legal Department, presented oral argument at The plaintiff in the main proceedings, the sitting on 23 September 1980. represented by Mr Alexander of The Hague Bar, the defendant in the main The Advocate General delivered his proceedings, represented by Mr Neels of opinion at the sitting on 15 October the Antwerp Bar, and the Commission of 1980.

Decision

1 By an order of 17 January 1980, which reached the Court on 23 January 1980, the Rechtbank van Koophandel [Commercial Court] of the legal district of Antwerp, in pursuance of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, requested the Court to give a preliminary ruling on questions relating to the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.

4 The Rechtbank van Koophandel consequently decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preli­ minary ruling:

" 1 . Is the system of 'parallel' exclusive selling agreements between a producer and exclusive importers, linked with selective d;3uibution networks between the national importers and the retailers chosen by them, based on alleged qualitative and quantitative selection criteria, in respect of a few perfumery products from a whole range, eligible for exemption as provided for in Article 85 (3) of the Treaty of Rome and is such the case here, from the point of view of Community law, for L'Oréal NV (Brussels) and L'Oréal SA (Paris)?

2. Is a decision to allow a matter to rest, from an official of the Commission of the European Communities, such as that contained in the letter of 22 February 1978, signed by J. E. Ferry, Director, for the Direc­ torate-General for Competition, (Restrictive practices and abuse of dominant positions Directorate), addressed to the first plaintiff in the main action, binding?

3. Are exemptions given in application of Article 85 (3) to be regarded as instances of toleration or do they create a right which, from the point of view of Community law, may be relied on against third parties, and is that the case for L'Òréal?

4. Can ĽOréaľs conduct towards third parties be regarded as an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome?"

5 It should first be recalled that the Court is not empowered, as part of the task assigned to it by Article 177 of the Treaty, to entertain the question of the application of the Treaty to a given case. The Court, therefore, has no

s The instrument thus placed at the Commission's disposal for the accomplishment of its task include decisions granting negative clearance and decisions in application of Article 85 (3). So far as decisions granting negative clearance are concerned, Article 2 of Regulation No 17 of the Council provides that, upon application by the undertakings concerned, the Commission may certify that, on the basis of the facts in its possession, there are no grounds under Article 85 (1) or Article 86 of the Treaty for action on its part in respect of an agreement, decision or practice. So far as decisions applying Article 85 (3) are concerned, Article 6 et seq; of Regulation No 17 cited above provide that the Commission may adopt decisions declaring the provisions of Article 85 (1) to be inapplicable to a given agreement provided that the latter has been notified to it or notification has been dispensed with by virtue of Article 4 (2) of the regulation. Those to whom such a decision is

UORÉAL v DE NIEUWE AMCK

addressed thus obtain recognition of their right to adopt, under such conditions, if any, as may be laid down by the Commission, an agreement, decision or concerted practice, and they may rely upon that right against any third party who, in an action before the national courts, claims that the agreement, decision or concerted practice concerned is in breach of Article 85 (1).

9 Regulation No 17 and the regulations issued in implementation thereof lay down the rules which must be followed by the Commission in adopting the aforementioned decisions. Where the Commission intends to give negative clearance pursuant to Article 2 or take a decision in application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty, it is bound, in particular, by virtue of Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17, to publish a summary of the relevant application or notification and invite all interested third parties to submit their observations within a time-limit which it shall fix. Decisions granting negative clearance and exemption mus be published, as provided for by Article 21 (1) of that regulation.

12 Consequently, it must be stated in reply to the second question that a letter signed by an official of the Commission indicating that there is no reason for the Commission to take action pursuant to Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty against a distribution system which has has been notified to it, may not be relied upon against third parties and is not binding on the national courts. It merely constitutes an element of fact of which the national courts may take account in considering the compatibility of the system in question with Community law.

T h e application of Article 85 to the distribution system in question

n With regard to the first question referred to the Court by the national court concerning the possibility that the distribution system in question may receive an exemption under Article 85 (3), it should be recalled that under Article 9 (1) of Regulation No 17 cited above the Commission has sole power, subject to review by the Court, to declare the provisions of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty inapplicable pursuant to Article 85 (3) of the Treaty. The jurisdiction of the national courts is restricted to determining whether the agreement, decision or concerted practice which is the subject of the action before them is in accordance with Article 85 (1) and, if appropriate, to declaring the agreement, decision or practice in question void under Article 85 (2).

i4 It is therefore in relation to those provisions that the national court will have to examine the validity of ĽOréaľs distribution system. It is for the Court of Justice to provide it for this purpose with the points of interpretation of Community law, which will enable it to reach a decision.

i6 In order to determine the exact nature of such "qualitative" criteria for the selection of re-sellers, it is also necessary to consider whether the charac­ teristics of the product in question necessitate a selective distribution system in order to preserve its quality and ensure its proper use, and whether those objectives are not already satisfied by national rules governing admission to the re-sale trade or the conditions of sale of the product in question. Finally, inquiry should be made as to whether the criteria laid down do not go beyond what is necessary. In that regard it should be recalled that in Case 26/76, Metro v Commission cited above, the Court considered that the obligation to participate in the setting up of a distibution system, commitments relating to the achievement of turnovers and obligations relating to minimum supply and to stocks exceeded the requirements of a selective distribution system based on qualitative requirements.

i7 When admission to a selective distribution network is made subject to conditions which go beyond simple objective selection of a qualitative nature and, in particular, when it is based on quantitative criteria, the distribution system falls in principle within the prohibition in Article 85 (1), provided that, as the Court observed in its judgment of 30 June 1966 (Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH, Case 56/65, [1966] ECR 235), the agreement fulfils certain conditions depending less on its legal nature than on its effects first on "trade between Member States" and secondly on "competition".

i9 On the other hand, in order to decide whether an agreement is to be considered as prohibited by reason of the distortion of competition which is its object or its effect, it is necessary to consider the competition within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute. To that end, it is appropriate to take into account in particular the nature and quantity, limited or otherwise, of the products covered by the agreement, the position and the importance of the parties on the market for the products concerned, and the isolated nature of the disputed agreement or, alternatively, its position in a series of agreements. In that regard the Court stated in its judgment of 12 December 1967 (in Case 23/67 Brasserie de Haecht [1967] ECR 407) that, although not necessarily decisive, the existence of similar contracts is a circumstance which, together with others, is capable of constituting an economic and legal context within which the contract must be judged.

20 It is for the national court to decide, on the basis of all the relevant infor- mation, whether the agreement in fact satisfies the requirements necessary for it to fall under the prohibition laid down in Article 85 (1).

2i Consequently, the answer to the first question must be that the agreements laying down a selective distribution system based on criteria for admission, which go beyond a mere objective selection of a qualitative nature, exhibit features making them incompatible with Article 85 (1) where such agreements, either individually or together with other, may, in the economic and legal context in which they occur and on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact, affect trade between Member States and have either as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. It is for the Commission alone, subject to review by the Court, to grant an exemption in respect of such agreements pursuant to Article 85 (3).

24 Article 86 of the Treaty prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or within a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

25 As the Court emphasized in its judgment of 21 February 1973 in Case 6/72, Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] ECR 215, when considering the possibly dominant position of an undertaking, the definition of the market is of fundamental significance. Indeed, the possibilities of .competition must be judged in the context of the market comprising the totality of the products which, with respect to ther characteristics, are parti­ cularly suitable for satisfying constant needs and are only to a limited extent interchangeable with other products.

26 A dominant position exists within the market thus defined when, as the Court last stated in its judgment of'13 February 1979 in Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, an undertaking enjoys a position of economic strength which enables it to prevent effective competition from being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of the consumers.

JUDGMENT OF 11. 12. 1980 — CASE 31/80

27 As far as the concept of abuse is concerned, that was defined by the Court in Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche, cited above, as an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a dominant position, which is such as to influence the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking in question, the degree of competition is weakened and which, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in products or services on the basis of the transactions of traders, has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition, still existing in the market or the growth of that competition.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp, by order of 17 January 1980, hereby rules:

1. The agreements laying down a selective distribution system based on criteria for admission which go beyond a mere objective selection of a qualitative nature exhibit features making them incompatible with Article 85 (1) where such agreements, either individually or together with others, may, in the economic and legal context in which they occur and on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact, affect trade between Member States and have either as their objective or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. It is for the Commission alone, subject to review by the Court, to grant an exemption in respect of such agreements under Article 85 (3).

2. Since a letter signed by an official of the Commission indicating that there is no reason for the latter to take action under Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty against a distribution system which has been notified to it is not an exemption within the meaning of Article 85 (3), it may not be relied upon against third parties and is not binding on the national courts. It merely constitutes an element of fact of which the national courts may take account, in considering the compatibility of the system in question with Community law.

3. The behaviour of an undertaking may be considered as an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty, where the undertaking enjoys in a particular market the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and the consumers and where its behaviour on that market, through recourse to methods different from those which condition

O P I N I O N OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL REISCHL DELIVERED O N 15 OCTOBER 1980 »

Mr President, The products involved in the main Members of the Court, proceedings (hairspray and hair-care products under the Kérastase brand) are The case on which I have to deliver an subject to a selective distribution system opinion today concerns questions which in Belgium, as in other Member States. largely coincide with, or are comparable Under that system those products may be with, questions which were raised in distributed only by hairdressers (hair- Joined Cases 253/78 and 1 to 3/79 and dressing consultants), whom L'Oréal Cases 37/79 and 99/79. supplies with technical assistance The L'Oréal company of Paris, one of enabling them to apply the products and the plaintiffs in the main proceedings, advise on the use thereof, and who manufactures and markets perfumery, undertake to attend technical infor- beauty and toiletry products. It has a mation sessions organized by L'Oréal, to subsidiary company in Belgium, the ensure that a systematic examination is other plaintiff in the main proceedings, carried out for each customer, to observe which, like other subsidiaries in other the rules for the application of the Member States, manufactures and products and to promote sales of the markets L'Oréal products in Belgium on whole range of products. The number of the basis of know-how and licensing such hairdressing consultants, who are contracts concluded with the parent expressly forbidden to dispose of the company. products in question to hairdressers who