法国–特许经营关系网和劳动法

4 9 月 2018

  • 法国
  • 分销协议
  • 特许经营

Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

  1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

  1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
  2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
  3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
  4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
  5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

根据西班牙最高法院的既定判例，如果《代理法》第28条以类推的方式适用（“激励的方法”）那么分销商有权因在分销合同期间与顾客签订的销售合同使供应商盈利而向供应商要求赔偿（以下简称“赔偿”）。对代理商的补偿是基于过去五年收到的酬劳。

然而，在分销合同中，并不存在诸如代理商收到的报酬（佣金、固定金额或其他报酬），而是“商业利润”（购货价和转售价之间的差额）。那么，问题是，在分销合同中，对赔偿数额的考虑：要么是“毛利”（即前面提到的购买价格与转售价格之间的差额），要么是“净利”（即相同差额，但扣除分销商承担的其他费用和税款）。

到目前为止的结论似乎是根据分销商的“毛利”来计算他的赔偿，因为这一数额与代理商的“报酬”更加相似：分销商的其他费用和税款不能扣除，就像在代理合同中的其他费用和税款也不能被扣除。

最高法院曾指出（1999年11月17日），为了计算赔偿数额，“更适当的做法是将其视为总缴款，因为代理人必须用它来支付其商业组织的所有付款”。此外，“获得的收入”“不构成同一意义上的报酬”（2008年10月21日），因为这种“收益”“属于代理人自己组织的内部范围”（2012年3月12日）。

然而，最近最高法院在2017年3月1日的判决中（2017年5月19日的另一项判决确认）认为，分销合同中赔偿金额的确定不能以分销商获得的“毛利”为依据，而只能以“净利”为依据。为了得出这一结论，法院援引了2016年同一法院的一项判决，以及2010年和2007年的其他判决。

这是否意味着判例法的改变？我认为，最高法院的这一判决是不正确的。让我们一起看一下原因。

在2017年3月的判决中，毛利或净利之间的脱节在第二次法庭辩论中被提及，并引用了2016年的裁定。

在2016年的判决中，据说，虽然在2010年的另一个判决中，没有得出是否必须按毛利或净利计算的结论，但在2007年的前一个判决中，承认了与代理的报酬类似的是分销商获得的净利润（扣除费用和税款后的利润），而不是购买和转售价格之间的差额。

Civil and Commercial Code of Argentina (“Code”) do not contain specific provisions for distribution contracts. Rather, a distribution contract is considered a so-called “innominate contract”, which combines, among other things, elements of purchase and sales contracts, commercial agency and mandate agreements. Article 1511 establishes that the rules of Chapter 18 (Concession Contracts) shall be applied to distribution agreements when applicable. Therefore, if the distribution agreement does not regulate a specific issue, the solution should sought by analogy referring to the statutory provisions related to these three types of contracts as default rules to the extent suitable in a given case.

Form and Formalities

Argentine Law requires no particular form or formalities for this type of agreements. However, written contracts are the most common form of agreements.

Important Provisions

For all parties:

  1. a) Force Majeure: Considering that Argentina tends to be an unstable environment for business due to political reasons, parties may be interested in considering the possibility of including acts of law/change in law and government acts within the scope of force majeure of the agreements.
  2. b) Insurance of products. It is important to have the products covered by an insurance, so that in the event of an accident, losses can be limited.
  3. c) Product registration.

For the supplier:

  1. a) Payment (if international, without taxes, provisions to receive full amount with no deduction or withholding).
  2. b) Currency (due to unstable of Argentine Pesos, it’s important to establish it and price increase if necessary).
  3. c) Product Recall.
  4. d) Lead Time.
  5. e) Delays.
  6. f) Stock conditions.

For the distributor:

  1. a) Returns.
  2. b) Clientele compensation.
  3. c) Defective product.
  4. d) Product samples.

Incoterms

In national distribution agreements, Incoterms are not commonly used. However, in international distribution agreements, the most common Incoterms used are the following:

For air transport: FCA (Free Carrier); for ship transport: FOB (Free On Board)

Product Liability

According to Argentine Consumers Law No. 24,240, the term for a consumer to bring an action against the distributor and/or supplier would elapse after three years, the term for other players in the commercialization chain who have a direct contractual relationship with the distributor and/or the supplier (e.g. retailers who have acquired the goods from the distributor and/or the distributor’s subcontractor) would expire only after ten years. In any event, the contractors may be interested in considering the possibility of counting the three-year term from the date of expiration of the products instead of considering the date of termination of the agreement (e.g. the product might be stored and not sold for a while and the mentioned 3-year expiration shall be therefore delayed).

Intellectual Property

Supplier shall obtain and renew registration of the products’ trademarks in Argentina. Besides, supplier should include a clause in the agreement stating that the trademarks are of its own property and that distributor only can use them to the extent granted by supplier in the agreement while it’s still in force. Moreover, distributor should protect supplier’s trademarks.

Termination

La parties may agree freely how to terminate the agreement. In case you agree a non cause resolution clause, such should have a reasonable prior notice so that the other party may have time to get another distribuitor or face the lose of the client, depending how exercise such option.

Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

The parties may agree the law wich they consider more convenient to solve any issue of the agreement. Moreover, the parties also are free to choose a court or an arbitral tribunal within the country or foreign.

The author of this post is Tomás García Navarro.

President Erdogan made a presidential decree that mandatorily requires use of Turkish lira for transactions concluded between parties resident in Turkey. The Decree amending the Decree on Protecting the value of Turkish Lira, (The Decree) is published in the Official Gazette and came into force on 13th September 2018.

The Decree orders use of Turkish Lira for purchase and sale of all kinds of goods, commodities, services and real estate. All kinds of lease and rental of vehicles and all kinds of goods and real estate must also be made by using Turkish Liras. The decree also stipulates that no reference to currency exchange tying a contract payment or value to foreign currency can be made and the all contracts between Turkish residents even if foreign owned must be based on Turkish Liras.

Let’s see the changes introduced by the regulation point by point.

No Use of Foreign Currency in domestic Contracts

New currency policy states that all payments related to contracts between local parties i.e. Turkish Residents whether legal persons or real persons must be made in Turkish liras.

Accordingly all real estate transactions must be made in Turkish liras and no reference can be made to foreign currencies.

All Contracts Must be Amended within 30 days

The Decree establishes also that all contracts between Turkish residents made before 13th September 2018 must be amended and the payments must be converted into Turkish liras from any foreign currency within 30 days from the publish date of The Decree (13th September 2018): this shall mean that all contracts based on foreign currencies must be amended within 14th October 2018.

There is no reference to a currency exchange rate when amending contracts into Turkish Liras. The parties are free to agree on any currency rate when amending however this cannot be stipulated in the contract but only for negotiation purposed when drafting the amendment.

The governmental projects which have been signed earlier should be coordinated with the related authority and adaption should be made in line with the new currency regime.

Import and Export of Goods and Services

The new decree does not impact an export or import relation, as long as one of the parties is not Turkish resident. However one must note that The Decree may have an impact on Turkish based subsidiaries of multinational companies trading with foreign currency.

There is no limitation in bringing foreign currency into country.

Sanctions

New foreign currency policy does not address any criminal or administrative sanctions. New regulations should be expected to implement the practice of The Decree. Needless to say, if one of the parties of an existing contract based on foreign currency will be eager to take the matter to the civil courts if no amendment is made within 30 days and easily obtain a court decision for amendment.

Conclusion

This move is considered as one of the steps of measure step to support the ailing local currency.

Slipping Turkish Liras has been an on-going concern for Turkey in last 6 months. The sudden drop of Turkish Liras exchange rate urged the government to find a quick cure to increase the value of Turkish liras or at least to maintain the status.

Those days, some rough policies have been adopted by governments to safeguard the fragile Turkish Lira. The measures taken indeed prevented Turkish economy to accelerate and take off. With the new liberal look after 1983 elections many of these hard measures were lifted and the law on Protection of Turkish Liras was eased. The era before 1980s when there were hard policies applied to protect Turkish Lira was in a different world than today.

The latest measure may or may not address an improvement but it is a fact that many foreign investors or local investors funded by foreign institutions will have to struggle due to the new regulations pushing them to amend their contracts into Turkish Liras from foreign currencies.

法国是特许经营关系网的大市场，近2000家特许经营关系网处于运营状态。这是最成功的商业发展计划之一。

特许人必须主要遵守法国关于预先披露信息的规定以及法国和欧盟的竞争条例等规定。虽然对授予特许者来说，对关系网质量和品牌形象的控制是一个非常重要且合法的问题，但授予特许者不能过多地干预特许经营人的日常活动，因为特许经营人是独立商家。因此，授予特许人与特许经营人之间的关系只能建立在商法的基础上，而不能建立在劳动法的基础上。然而，法国最近的规定将导致授予特许者与特许经营者和他们的雇员一起实施某些劳动法。

在法国经营特许经营关系网的外国特许经营者确实必须知道如何应对《劳动法》（2016年8月8日）及其法令（2017年5月4日）所带来的限制，并自2017年5月7日起生效，该法令涉及为整个特许经营关系网设立一个雇员论坛。事实上，这个社会对话委员会可以对特许经营关系网的组织工作产生深刻的影响。

首先，新的社会对话委员会只关心经营者受特许权协议约束的关系网。因此，商标许可和分销合同似乎没有包括在内。特许权协议应被理解为由三项单独协议构成的特殊合同：商标许可协议、专有技术许可协议和商业或技术援助协议。然而，2016年8月8日的法律却造成了一些混乱，规定社会对话委员会所涉及的特许协议是“引用《法国商法典》第L330-3条”协议，尽管该条不仅没有界定特许合同的定义，而且可以适用于其他合同（独家分销协议），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

此外，根据该法案，只有包括“对特许经营企业的工作组织和条件有影响的条款”的具体特许协议才会受到关注。尽管该法没有界定这些条款，一方面，是否需要社会对话委员会取决于确定这些条款；另一方面，特许经营者在组织和管理其业务，包括在雇佣劳工事务方面，本质上独立于授予特许人。因此，有必要对所有特许经营协议进行就业审计（例如，如果条款规定营业时间或规定着装怎么办？），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

最后，只有在法国雇用至少300名（全职）工作人员的特许经营关系网才要求设立社会对话委员会。这似乎不包括特许经营人的雇员或不受特许经营协议约束的经营者的雇员(例如受商标许可合同约束的经营者)。

意味着长期谈判的实现

即使满足了法律要求，授予特许人也没有义务自发成立社会对话委员会。然而，一旦工会要求成立社会对话委员会，授予特许人就有义务积极参加该行业发起的谈判，与所有特许经营者核实其关系网上的雇员人数是否达到300人的门槛，然后建立一个由雇员（工会）代表和雇主（授予特许人和特许经营人）代表组成的“谈判论坛”，用来达成创建和组织未来社会对话委员会的协议。

与工会和特许经营者的谈判将在6达成协议但须经授予特许人、工会和至少30%的特许经营者(占关系网雇员的30%)的同意。该协议应确定社会对话委员会的组成、其成员的任职方式、任期、会议的频率、如果需要，雇员可以为委员会贡献多长时间、委员会实现其宗旨所需的物质或财政手段、以及如何处理费用和代表的旅费和生活津贴等问题。最后一个问题可能不仅是授予特许人关注的一个主要问题，而且也是特许经营人-雇主关注的一个主要方面。由于没有达成这样的协议，该法令规定设立社会对话委员会，其中有几项严格和最低限度的规定，可能会给授予特许人造成不合理的负担。

一旦成立，内部规则将确切界定社会对话委员会的运作方式（所需的多数人、会议通知和引荐来源、讨论内容的公布等）。

无事生非？

社会对话委员会无权调查案件或作出具有约束力的裁决，但社会对话委员会必须让大家知道特许经营者加盟或离开销售关系网的情况，以及“授予特许者的决定，易于影响到特许经营者雇员的数量和结构、工作时间或就业、工作和职业培训条件”。

社会对话委员会还可就如何改善贯穿整个关系网的条件提出建议。

社会对话委员会的影响终究相当有限，但授予特许人必须认真掌握和控制规则的实施，以避免损失自己的特许经营商的时间和精力以及关系网的混乱。

Not what you would expect 

When can you terminate, how should you terminate, and how much are you exposed?!

The outcomes of termination of a business relationship with an Israeli counterpart in Israel arise again and again as a question in many disputes between International corporations and Israeli counterparts, such as distributors or franchisees.

This is mainly because Israeli law does not include specific laws regulating or regarding distribution or franchising or other kinds of business ventures (except a relatively new agency law – referring in a limited manner to specific kinds of agency only) – and thus disputes in said regards are determined based on the general principles of contract law, the contractual and factual bases – obviously resulting in considerable uncertainty as to specific matters.

However, substantial case law, such as in the matter of Johnson & Johnson International that ended up paying compensation in the equivalent to over 1.5 Million US$, indicates the basics and threshold of what can be expected in such disputes, and, if implemented wisely, may assist in planning the disengagement or termination of a business relationship, in a manner that would be the least costly for the terminating party and minimize its exposure to a lawsuit.

In many cases, domestic parties invest many years and/or fortunes, in order to penetrate the domestic market with the foreign service or products, and to promote sales in the subject region, for the benefit of both the international corporation and the domestic party.

Nevertheless, often the international corporation decides for various reasons (such as establishing an “in-house” operation” in the target location or substituting the distributor/franchisee) to terminate the oral or written contractual relationship.

What are the legal foundations involved in such termination as per due notice of termination and corresponding compensation – if at all?

Generally, this issue arises in cases in which the contract does not specify a period of the business relationship, and, as a principle of law, contracts may be terminated by reasonable notice and subject to the fundamental good faith principle.

Contracts are not perceived as binding upon the parties indefinitely. The question is always what is the reasonable time for termination notice, and is the termination done in good faith (which is always a tricky and vague issue). Compensation is commonly awarded in accordance with what the courts find as the due notice period that may also entail compensation for damages related to said breach.

As always, there are exceptions, such as breach of trust toward the manufacturer/franchisor, that may have great impact on any due notice obligations, as far as justification for immediate termination that can be deemed immune to breach of due notice or good faith obligations.

The truth is the reasonability of the due notice varies from case to case!

However, Israeli case law is extremely sensitive to the actual reasoning of termination and how genuine it is, as opposed to asserting a tactical breach argument in an attempt to “justify” avoiding a due notice period or adequate compensation.

In this respect, in many cases simple “non-satisfaction” was denied as a legitimate argument for breach of contract, while safeguarding the freedom of contracts and the right to terminate an ongoing contract with due notice and good faith.

There are various common parameters referred to in the case law, to determine the adequate time of due notice, including, for instance, the magnitude of investment; the time required for rearrangement of business towards the new situation (including time required to find an alternative supplier product which can be marketed); the magnitude of the product/service out of the entire distributor’s business, etc.

Time and again, although not as binding rule, the due notice period seems to be in the range of around 12 months, as a balance between the right of termination and the reasonable time for rearranging the business in light of the termination. There were, however, cases in which due notice for termination was deemed as short as three months and as long as two years – but these are rather exceptional.

Another guiding point in the case law is the factor of exclusivity or non-exclusivity, as well as the concept that the longer the business relationship, the less the distributor/franchisee may expect compensation/reimbursement for investment – based on the concept that he has enjoyed the fruits of the investment.

The outcome of not providing such adequate due notice might result in actual compensation reflecting the loss of profit of the business in the last year before the termination, or for the whole term the court finds a due notice was in place, or, in cases of bad faith, even a longer period reflecting the damages.

In conclusion, given the legal regime in Israel, such exposure might be extremely considerable for any international or foreign business. It would, therefore, be vital and as a consequence of real value to plan the strategy of disengagement/termination of the business with the domestic counterpart in Israel, in advance and prior to executing it, and there are, indeed, adequate and wise strategies that may be implemented for the best result.

It is often the case – in practice – that an ongoing commercial relationship builds slowly over time through a series of sales agreements, without the parties ever signing an actual distribution agreement to set down their respective rights and responsibilities.

At first blush this might appear to be a good thing: one can sidestep being bound, especially long-term, to the other party. But on closer scrutiny the solution becomes problematic, especially for anyone operating internationally.

One of the key issues that arises when an international contractual arrangement is not in writing, is identifying the court with jurisdiction over any dispute arising therefrom. In the European Union, the issue is resolved by the provisions of Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussels I recast”). Pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation, as an alternative to the defendant’s courts, jurisdiction in a contractual dispute may lie with the court in the place of performance of the obligation in question. Next to this general rule are two criteria to identify the “place of performance”, differentiated according to the type of contract at issue. For a contract for goods, it is the place of delivery for the goods; in a contract for services, it is the place where the services are provided.   

Thus, to identify the court with jurisdiction, it is crucial that a contract fall under one of these categories: goods or services.

No doubt this distinction is quite simple in many circumstances. In the case of a distribution agreement, or of a commercial concession agreement, the issue may become thorny.

The European Court of Justice has analysed this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in their judgement of 8 March 2018 (Case no. C-64/17) following the request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese Court of Appeal. The parties to the action were a Portuguese distributor, a company called Lusavouga, and a Belgian company called Saey Home & Garden, that produced articles for the home and garden, including a line of products branded “Barbecook”.

Following Saey’s decision to break off the commercial relationship – notice of which was sent in an email dated 17 July 2014 – Lusavouga brought action in Portugal seeking compensation for the unexpected termination of the agreement, and goodwill indemnity. Saey raised a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Portuguese court, citing their general conditions of sale (mentioned in their invoices) which required that a Court in Belgium be competent for dispute resolution.

The facts thus presented two issues to be resolved in light of the Brussels I recast Regulation: deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a vendor’s general terms and conditions pursuant to Art. 25 of the Regulation shall apply, and, if not, choosing the court with jurisdiction under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

Shall a jurisdiction clause contained within a vendor’s general terms and conditions apply to a distribution relationship?

The supplier company apparently considered their course of dealing with the Portuguese retailer nothing more than a concatenation of individual sales of goods, governed by their general terms and conditions. Consequently, they argued that any dispute arising from the relationship should be subject to the jurisdiction clause identifying Belgium as the court with jurisdiction under those terms and conditions.

Thus, a determination was needed on whether, under these facts, there was a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 25, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1215/2012.

The Court of Justice has long opined that if the jurisdiction clause is included in the general contract conditions drafted by one of the parties, the contract signed by the other party must contain an express reference to those general conditions in order to ensure the real consent thereto by the parties (judgement of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani, case no. 24/76; judgement of 16 March 1999, Castelletti, case no. C-159/97; judgement of 7 July 2016, Höszig, case no. C-225/15). Moreover, to be valid, the clause must involve a particular legal relationship (judgement of 20 April 2016, Profit Investment SIM, case no. C-366/13).

In the instant case, the referring court found it self-evident that the legal relationship at bar was a commercial concession agreement entered into for the purpose of distributing Saey products in Spain, a contract that was not evidenced in writing.

From this perspective, it is clear that the general conditions contained in the Saey invoices could have no bearing on the commercial concession agreement: assuming Lusavouga’s consent had been proven, the selection of Belgium as the forum would have applied if anything to the individual sales agreements, but not to those duties arising from the separate distribution agreement.

What, then, would be the court with jurisdiction for the duties arising from the commercial concession agreement?

Absent any jurisdiction clause, the issue would be decided under Art. 7, point 1 of Regulation 1215/2012, under which it becomes imperative to establish whether a contract is for goods or for services.

The “provision of services” has been defined by the Court of Justice as an activity, not mere omissions, undertaken in return for remuneration (judgement of 23 April 2009, Falco, case no. C-533/07).

With the judgements in Corman Collins of 19 December 2013 (case no. C-9/12), and Granarolo of 14 July 2016 (case no. C-196/15), the Court held that in a typical distribution agreement, the dealer renders a service, in that they are involved in increasing the distribution of supplier’s product, and receives in consideration therefor a competitive advantage, access to advertising platforms, know-how, or payment facilities. In light of such elements, the contract relationship should be deemed one for services. If on the other hand the commercial relationship is limited to a concatenation of agreements, each for the purpose of a delivery and pickup of merchandise, then what we have is not a typical distribution agreement, and the contractual relationship shall be construed as one for the sale of goods.

Once the contract has been categorised as one for services, one must then determine “the place where, under the contract, the services are provided”. The Court specifies that such location shall be understood as the member state of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract  or – as in the case at issue – the actual performance of the same. Only where it is impossible to identify such location shall the domicile of the party rendering the service be used.

From the referring court’s description of the contractual relationship, and from the Court of Justice’s understanding of the distributor’s performance of services, it would be logical to find that the principal location for performance of services was Spain, where Lusavouga “was involved in increasing the distribution of products” of Saey.

It is clear that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor would ever have intended such a result, and they might have avoided it being chosen for them by reducing their agreement in writing, including a jurisdiction clause therein.

By the same token, viewed from the outside, the Portuguese judges’ apparent conviction that the situation was one of an actual dealership contract would leave ample room for debate. After all, a number of elements would lead to the opposite conclusion. However, even in terms of that aspect, the absence of a written contract left room for interpretation that might lead to unforeseen – and perhaps rather risky – consequences.

In conclusion, the wisdom of setting down the terms and conditions of a sales distribution agreement in writing appears clear. This is not only because one can avoid those ambiguities we have described above, but also because it specifies other important clauses stipulated by the parties that should not be left to chance: exclusivity of area, if any, or with respect to specific sales channels, the contract period and termination notice, any duties to promote the product, control over end-user personal data, and the possibility of, and methods for, any online sales of products.

根据欧盟电子商务部门的调查，超过50%的互联网市场和36%的零售商提供数据给价格搜索引擎，如 Idealo，谷歌购物Google Shopping，或Shopzilla。相比之下，大约10%的经销商受到价格比较引擎禁令的影响（见委员会工作人员工作文件SWD（2017）154定稿，S.32图B.4和欧盟委员会第37页，电子商务部门调查的最后报告，第10页）。

不过，联邦法院最近确认，价格比较引擎的禁令是反竞争和无效的。在具体案例中，爱世克斯（跑鞋品牌名）通常禁止德国零售商支持在线分销中的价格搜索引擎：

“此外，经授权的…经销商不得…通过为这些价格比较引擎提供特定于应用程序的接口（“APIs”）来支持价格比较引擎的功能。”

此外，该协议还包含了对第三方平台广告的广泛禁止：爱世克斯禁止其授权经销商允许第三方在第三方网站上以任何形式使用爱世克斯的商标，以便直接引导客户访问被授权的爱世克斯经销商的网站。

爱世克斯的分销协议首先由德国竞争管理机构Bundeskartellamt作为试点案例进行调查(由于许多体育零售商对体育设备制造商的互联网转售限制提出了申诉，因此对阿迪达斯提起了另一起试点案件)。2015年，Bundeskartellamt裁定，爱世克斯对价格比较引擎的禁令违反了反垄断法，因为它将违反第101条(1) TFEU，sec.1 《禁止限制竞争法》。提出的理由是，这种禁令的主要目的是控制和限制价格竞争，而牺牲消费者的利益。这项决定首先得到了Düsseldorf高等地区法院的确认（2017年4月5日的裁决，案件号：VI-Kart 13/15(V)，见Legalmondo文章，点击这里）。

现在，联邦法院再次确认了这项裁决（2017年12月12日的决定，第KVZ 41/17号案件）。爱世克斯的裁决特别值得注意，因为它是德国法院继欧盟法院关于科蒂（全球最大的香水生产公司）的平台禁令作出裁决裁决之后作出的首项裁决（见Legalmondo的文章，点击这里）。因此，这是法院今后将如何处理互联网转售限制的第一个迹象。

因此，联邦法院指出，对价格搜索引擎的普遍禁止“至少”要限制向终端消费者的被动销售（第23款, 25款)–这种限制甚至将是这种禁令的预期目的。法院认为，根据《科蒂判决》（点击此出查看），一般平台禁令的可接受性并不意味着一般价格比较禁令的可接受性（第28款及其后款）。尤其是“限制组合”–即第三方平台价格比较引擎和广告宣传禁令–会产生影响。因为它没有确保潜在客户能够“实际进入”经销商网站（第30款） –在这种情况下，联邦最高法院允许提供这种“实质性准入”所需的充分或必要的条件；在这种情况下，一般价格比较引擎禁令仍可继续得到允许。

实用贴士：

  • 事实上，根据联邦最高法院的判决，Düsseldorf高级地区法院（Asics）和法兰克福高等地区法院（Deuter）已经指出以下区别可能适用于：
  • 一般价格比较引擎禁令是–根据联邦法院–反竞争的，因此通常是无效的–尽管如果不与广泛的广告禁令相结合，这些禁令仍然是允许的，这样就可以保证潜在的客户能够访问经销商网站。
  • 单独的价格比较引擎禁令和使用价格比较门户网站的其他较温和的限制/标准是允许的，例如关于产品插画或说明以及产品环境（例如要求经销商只能提供新产品）。

进一步了解细节: Rohrßen, Internetvertrieb: „Nicht Ideal(o)“ – Kombination aus Preissuchmaschinen-Verbot und Logo-Klausel, in: ZVertriebsR 2018, 118 ff.

  • 除此之外，制造商可以–在排他性分销网络内–禁止其分销商主动向制造商保留的或由制造商分配给另一分销商的客户提供在线广告，并指明所使用的语言。原则上，所有其他可能的质量标准也是允许的，只要他们和线下分销标准等效（因为“委员会认为，规定网上销售的标准与从实体店销售的标准总体上不等于硬核限制，从而劝阻指定经销商使用互联网接触更多和更多样化的客户的任何义务”，《纵向限制准则》，第56条）。

有关更多信息，请参见：

  • 有关实践现状的概述，包括示范合约条款：Rohrßen, Vertriebsvorgaben im E-Commerce 2018: Praxisübersichts und Folgen des “Coty”-Urteils des EuGH, in: GRUR-Prax 2018, 39-41 以及
  • 特别是关于平台禁令和可能起草分配协议: Rohrßen, Internetvertrieb von Markenartikeln: Zulässigkeit von Plattformverboten nach dem EuGH-Urteil Coty – Auswirkungen auf Fachhändler- bzw. Selektiv-, Exklusiv-, Franchise- und offene Vertriebsverträge –, in: DB 2018. 300-306.
  • 关于在互联网销售平台中嵌入的搜索功能中是否允许使用商标和公司徽标，见联邦法院最近于2018年2月15日发布的两项裁决（案件号：I ZR 138/16 re “Ortlieb” 和案件号 I ZR 201/1 re “gofit“).

Christophe Hery

业务领域

  • 代理中介
  • 反垄断
  • 仲裁
  • 分销协议
  • 电子商务
联系方式 Christophe

写信给 Christophe





    阅读 Legalmondo 的隐私政策
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Israel – Termination of international business

    4 9 月 2018

    • 以色列
    • 分销协议
    • 诉讼

    Arbitration is a well-known system for dispute resolutions, and works as an alternative to judicial procedures. Parties are free to choose this system and to submit their conflicts to specific arbitrators or institutions.

    It is usually considered that arbitration is a good way to solve conflicts but preferable to those arisen between big corporations or involving important amounts of money. Although this assumption is generally accepted, there is an alternative for distribution disputes suitable for smaller companies and cases with lower amounts claimed.

    And here is the essential question: why a manufacturer/franchisor or a distributor/agent/franchisee should choose a specialized arbitration for their agreements instead of a more general one or, even, a judicial procedure? The answer seems clear: an arbitrator with knowledge not only in procedural questions but in substantive matters will be able to better understand the conflict between the parties and, therefore, to grant a better award. Take into account that, for instance in my Country, Spain, a Judge of First instance can deal in the same day with a distribution contract, a construction case, a conflict between heirs, and a discussion in a community of owners. All of this requires the analysis of different facts and completely different legislations and it is true that specific commercial problems do not usually have judges experts in international trading. But, how to choose a good specialized arbitrator? And, how to choose the arbitral procedure and the institution in terms of organization, neutrality, costs and time?

    The IDArb was created in 2016 by the International Distribution Institute (www.idiproject.com) in collaboration with the Chambre de Commerce d’Industries et de Services de Genève (CCIG www.ccig.ch) and the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI www.swissarbitration.org) and offers to the distribution sector (distribution, agency, franchising, selective distribution) a specialized, expedited and affordable arbitration procedure, not only for big international corporations but also for smaller cases. In fact, the expedited procedure is particularly foreseen for amounts below one million CHF (approx. 880.000 €).

    The objectives and main characteristics of IDArb which make it suitable for all the distribution disputes are:

    1. A list of specialized arbitrators experts in this particular field is available for ad hoc or institutional arbitration and IDArb is able to assist the parties to choose one of them.

    Specialized arbitrators from different countries and legal cultures have been appointed by a Selecting Committee reviewing their experience in one or more fields of distribution law. Therefore, parties can trust that the arbitrator will have concrete skills in the business with an in-depth understanding of the disputed issues. This is not a general knowledge on commercial law, but a concrete one on distribution, expressly verified by the Committee. Parties can even examine some examples of cases in which every arbitrator has been involved in.

    1. In order to maintain its high quality, the IDArb organizes training seminars for its appointed arbitrators. In these seminars, they are able to discuss about the general management of the arbitration, the procedural aspects and how to solve possible incidents in collaboration with the Institutions and their Rules. This will make all the proceedings more manageable and the possible difficulties more easily solved. Last seminar took place in Geneva in November 8, 2018 and participants have discussed, amongst other subjects, on evidences, witnesses and document production.
    2. The expedited arbitration procedure permits the parties to have a tailored procedure managed by SCAI under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, specially adapted for small disputes in the field of distribution.
    3. Time is also an essential element: the award in the expedited procedure will be issued in a maximum term of six months (only exceptional circumstances permit the Court to extend such time-limit), and, if parties agree, it can be decided only on documentary evidence.
    4. Costs are reasonable and known in advance.
    5. And, as final but important remark, IDArb has also adopted some recommendations where, upon request of the parties, mediation is favoured, the arbitrator my consider giving a preliminary non-binding and provisional assessment of the dispute and should have a pro-active position in order to facilitate an amicable settlement.

    To have further information about the clause to use in the contracts, the list of specialized arbitrators, their skills, experience and complete CV, and the recommendations for expedited arbitration, you can follow the link: https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project

    根据西班牙最高法院的既定判例，如果《代理法》第28条以类推的方式适用（“激励的方法”）那么分销商有权因在分销合同期间与顾客签订的销售合同使供应商盈利而向供应商要求赔偿（以下简称“赔偿”）。对代理商的补偿是基于过去五年收到的酬劳。

    然而，在分销合同中，并不存在诸如代理商收到的报酬（佣金、固定金额或其他报酬），而是“商业利润”（购货价和转售价之间的差额）。那么，问题是，在分销合同中，对赔偿数额的考虑：要么是“毛利”（即前面提到的购买价格与转售价格之间的差额），要么是“净利”（即相同差额，但扣除分销商承担的其他费用和税款）。

    到目前为止的结论似乎是根据分销商的“毛利”来计算他的赔偿，因为这一数额与代理商的“报酬”更加相似：分销商的其他费用和税款不能扣除，就像在代理合同中的其他费用和税款也不能被扣除。

    最高法院曾指出（1999年11月17日），为了计算赔偿数额，“更适当的做法是将其视为总缴款，因为代理人必须用它来支付其商业组织的所有付款”。此外，“获得的收入”“不构成同一意义上的报酬”（2008年10月21日），因为这种“收益”“属于代理人自己组织的内部范围”（2012年3月12日）。

    然而，最近最高法院在2017年3月1日的判决中（2017年5月19日的另一项判决确认）认为，分销合同中赔偿金额的确定不能以分销商获得的“毛利”为依据，而只能以“净利”为依据。为了得出这一结论，法院援引了2016年同一法院的一项判决，以及2010年和2007年的其他判决。

    这是否意味着判例法的改变？我认为，最高法院的这一判决是不正确的。让我们一起看一下原因。

    在2017年3月的判决中，毛利或净利之间的脱节在第二次法庭辩论中被提及，并引用了2016年的裁定。

    在2016年的判决中，据说，虽然在2010年的另一个判决中，没有得出是否必须按毛利或净利计算的结论，但在2007年的前一个判决中，承认了与代理的报酬类似的是分销商获得的净利润（扣除费用和税款后的利润），而不是购买和转售价格之间的差额。

    Civil and Commercial Code of Argentina (“Code”) do not contain specific provisions for distribution contracts. Rather, a distribution contract is considered a so-called “innominate contract”, which combines, among other things, elements of purchase and sales contracts, commercial agency and mandate agreements. Article 1511 establishes that the rules of Chapter 18 (Concession Contracts) shall be applied to distribution agreements when applicable. Therefore, if the distribution agreement does not regulate a specific issue, the solution should sought by analogy referring to the statutory provisions related to these three types of contracts as default rules to the extent suitable in a given case.

    Form and Formalities

    Argentine Law requires no particular form or formalities for this type of agreements. However, written contracts are the most common form of agreements.

    Important Provisions

    For all parties:

    1. a) Force Majeure: Considering that Argentina tends to be an unstable environment for business due to political reasons, parties may be interested in considering the possibility of including acts of law/change in law and government acts within the scope of force majeure of the agreements.
    2. b) Insurance of products. It is important to have the products covered by an insurance, so that in the event of an accident, losses can be limited.
    3. c) Product registration.

    For the supplier:

    1. a) Payment (if international, without taxes, provisions to receive full amount with no deduction or withholding).
    2. b) Currency (due to unstable of Argentine Pesos, it’s important to establish it and price increase if necessary).
    3. c) Product Recall.
    4. d) Lead Time.
    5. e) Delays.
    6. f) Stock conditions.

    For the distributor:

    1. a) Returns.
    2. b) Clientele compensation.
    3. c) Defective product.
    4. d) Product samples.

    Incoterms

    In national distribution agreements, Incoterms are not commonly used. However, in international distribution agreements, the most common Incoterms used are the following:

    For air transport: FCA (Free Carrier); for ship transport: FOB (Free On Board)

    Product Liability

    According to Argentine Consumers Law No. 24,240, the term for a consumer to bring an action against the distributor and/or supplier would elapse after three years, the term for other players in the commercialization chain who have a direct contractual relationship with the distributor and/or the supplier (e.g. retailers who have acquired the goods from the distributor and/or the distributor’s subcontractor) would expire only after ten years. In any event, the contractors may be interested in considering the possibility of counting the three-year term from the date of expiration of the products instead of considering the date of termination of the agreement (e.g. the product might be stored and not sold for a while and the mentioned 3-year expiration shall be therefore delayed).

    Intellectual Property

    Supplier shall obtain and renew registration of the products’ trademarks in Argentina. Besides, supplier should include a clause in the agreement stating that the trademarks are of its own property and that distributor only can use them to the extent granted by supplier in the agreement while it’s still in force. Moreover, distributor should protect supplier’s trademarks.

    Termination

    La parties may agree freely how to terminate the agreement. In case you agree a non cause resolution clause, such should have a reasonable prior notice so that the other party may have time to get another distribuitor or face the lose of the client, depending how exercise such option.

    Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

    The parties may agree the law wich they consider more convenient to solve any issue of the agreement. Moreover, the parties also are free to choose a court or an arbitral tribunal within the country or foreign.

    The author of this post is Tomás García Navarro.

    President Erdogan made a presidential decree that mandatorily requires use of Turkish lira for transactions concluded between parties resident in Turkey. The Decree amending the Decree on Protecting the value of Turkish Lira, (The Decree) is published in the Official Gazette and came into force on 13th September 2018.

    The Decree orders use of Turkish Lira for purchase and sale of all kinds of goods, commodities, services and real estate. All kinds of lease and rental of vehicles and all kinds of goods and real estate must also be made by using Turkish Liras. The decree also stipulates that no reference to currency exchange tying a contract payment or value to foreign currency can be made and the all contracts between Turkish residents even if foreign owned must be based on Turkish Liras.

    Let’s see the changes introduced by the regulation point by point.

    No Use of Foreign Currency in domestic Contracts

    New currency policy states that all payments related to contracts between local parties i.e. Turkish Residents whether legal persons or real persons must be made in Turkish liras.

    Accordingly all real estate transactions must be made in Turkish liras and no reference can be made to foreign currencies.

    All Contracts Must be Amended within 30 days

    The Decree establishes also that all contracts between Turkish residents made before 13th September 2018 must be amended and the payments must be converted into Turkish liras from any foreign currency within 30 days from the publish date of The Decree (13th September 2018): this shall mean that all contracts based on foreign currencies must be amended within 14th October 2018.

    There is no reference to a currency exchange rate when amending contracts into Turkish Liras. The parties are free to agree on any currency rate when amending however this cannot be stipulated in the contract but only for negotiation purposed when drafting the amendment.

    The governmental projects which have been signed earlier should be coordinated with the related authority and adaption should be made in line with the new currency regime.

    Import and Export of Goods and Services

    The new decree does not impact an export or import relation, as long as one of the parties is not Turkish resident. However one must note that The Decree may have an impact on Turkish based subsidiaries of multinational companies trading with foreign currency.

    There is no limitation in bringing foreign currency into country.

    Sanctions

    New foreign currency policy does not address any criminal or administrative sanctions. New regulations should be expected to implement the practice of The Decree. Needless to say, if one of the parties of an existing contract based on foreign currency will be eager to take the matter to the civil courts if no amendment is made within 30 days and easily obtain a court decision for amendment.

    Conclusion

    This move is considered as one of the steps of measure step to support the ailing local currency.

    Slipping Turkish Liras has been an on-going concern for Turkey in last 6 months. The sudden drop of Turkish Liras exchange rate urged the government to find a quick cure to increase the value of Turkish liras or at least to maintain the status.

    Those days, some rough policies have been adopted by governments to safeguard the fragile Turkish Lira. The measures taken indeed prevented Turkish economy to accelerate and take off. With the new liberal look after 1983 elections many of these hard measures were lifted and the law on Protection of Turkish Liras was eased. The era before 1980s when there were hard policies applied to protect Turkish Lira was in a different world than today.

    The latest measure may or may not address an improvement but it is a fact that many foreign investors or local investors funded by foreign institutions will have to struggle due to the new regulations pushing them to amend their contracts into Turkish Liras from foreign currencies.

    法国是特许经营关系网的大市场，近2000家特许经营关系网处于运营状态。这是最成功的商业发展计划之一。

    特许人必须主要遵守法国关于预先披露信息的规定以及法国和欧盟的竞争条例等规定。虽然对授予特许者来说，对关系网质量和品牌形象的控制是一个非常重要且合法的问题，但授予特许者不能过多地干预特许经营人的日常活动，因为特许经营人是独立商家。因此，授予特许人与特许经营人之间的关系只能建立在商法的基础上，而不能建立在劳动法的基础上。然而，法国最近的规定将导致授予特许者与特许经营者和他们的雇员一起实施某些劳动法。

    在法国经营特许经营关系网的外国特许经营者确实必须知道如何应对《劳动法》（2016年8月8日）及其法令（2017年5月4日）所带来的限制，并自2017年5月7日起生效，该法令涉及为整个特许经营关系网设立一个雇员论坛。事实上，这个社会对话委员会可以对特许经营关系网的组织工作产生深刻的影响。

    首先，新的社会对话委员会只关心经营者受特许权协议约束的关系网。因此，商标许可和分销合同似乎没有包括在内。特许权协议应被理解为由三项单独协议构成的特殊合同：商标许可协议、专有技术许可协议和商业或技术援助协议。然而，2016年8月8日的法律却造成了一些混乱，规定社会对话委员会所涉及的特许协议是“引用《法国商法典》第L330-3条”协议，尽管该条不仅没有界定特许合同的定义，而且可以适用于其他合同（独家分销协议），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

    此外，根据该法案，只有包括“对特许经营企业的工作组织和条件有影响的条款”的具体特许协议才会受到关注。尽管该法没有界定这些条款，一方面，是否需要社会对话委员会取决于确定这些条款；另一方面，特许经营者在组织和管理其业务，包括在雇佣劳工事务方面，本质上独立于授予特许人。因此，有必要对所有特许经营协议进行就业审计（例如，如果条款规定营业时间或规定着装怎么办？），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

    最后，只有在法国雇用至少300名（全职）工作人员的特许经营关系网才要求设立社会对话委员会。这似乎不包括特许经营人的雇员或不受特许经营协议约束的经营者的雇员(例如受商标许可合同约束的经营者)。

    意味着长期谈判的实现

    即使满足了法律要求，授予特许人也没有义务自发成立社会对话委员会。然而，一旦工会要求成立社会对话委员会，授予特许人就有义务积极参加该行业发起的谈判，与所有特许经营者核实其关系网上的雇员人数是否达到300人的门槛，然后建立一个由雇员（工会）代表和雇主（授予特许人和特许经营人）代表组成的“谈判论坛”，用来达成创建和组织未来社会对话委员会的协议。

    与工会和特许经营者的谈判将在6达成协议但须经授予特许人、工会和至少30%的特许经营者(占关系网雇员的30%)的同意。该协议应确定社会对话委员会的组成、其成员的任职方式、任期、会议的频率、如果需要，雇员可以为委员会贡献多长时间、委员会实现其宗旨所需的物质或财政手段、以及如何处理费用和代表的旅费和生活津贴等问题。最后一个问题可能不仅是授予特许人关注的一个主要问题，而且也是特许经营人-雇主关注的一个主要方面。由于没有达成这样的协议，该法令规定设立社会对话委员会，其中有几项严格和最低限度的规定，可能会给授予特许人造成不合理的负担。

    一旦成立，内部规则将确切界定社会对话委员会的运作方式（所需的多数人、会议通知和引荐来源、讨论内容的公布等）。

    无事生非？

    社会对话委员会无权调查案件或作出具有约束力的裁决，但社会对话委员会必须让大家知道特许经营者加盟或离开销售关系网的情况，以及“授予特许者的决定，易于影响到特许经营者雇员的数量和结构、工作时间或就业、工作和职业培训条件”。

    社会对话委员会还可就如何改善贯穿整个关系网的条件提出建议。

    社会对话委员会的影响终究相当有限，但授予特许人必须认真掌握和控制规则的实施，以避免损失自己的特许经营商的时间和精力以及关系网的混乱。

    Not what you would expect 

    When can you terminate, how should you terminate, and how much are you exposed?!

    The outcomes of termination of a business relationship with an Israeli counterpart in Israel arise again and again as a question in many disputes between International corporations and Israeli counterparts, such as distributors or franchisees.

    This is mainly because Israeli law does not include specific laws regulating or regarding distribution or franchising or other kinds of business ventures (except a relatively new agency law – referring in a limited manner to specific kinds of agency only) – and thus disputes in said regards are determined based on the general principles of contract law, the contractual and factual bases – obviously resulting in considerable uncertainty as to specific matters.

    However, substantial case law, such as in the matter of Johnson & Johnson International that ended up paying compensation in the equivalent to over 1.5 Million US$, indicates the basics and threshold of what can be expected in such disputes, and, if implemented wisely, may assist in planning the disengagement or termination of a business relationship, in a manner that would be the least costly for the terminating party and minimize its exposure to a lawsuit.

    In many cases, domestic parties invest many years and/or fortunes, in order to penetrate the domestic market with the foreign service or products, and to promote sales in the subject region, for the benefit of both the international corporation and the domestic party.

    Nevertheless, often the international corporation decides for various reasons (such as establishing an “in-house” operation” in the target location or substituting the distributor/franchisee) to terminate the oral or written contractual relationship.

    What are the legal foundations involved in such termination as per due notice of termination and corresponding compensation – if at all?

    Generally, this issue arises in cases in which the contract does not specify a period of the business relationship, and, as a principle of law, contracts may be terminated by reasonable notice and subject to the fundamental good faith principle.

    Contracts are not perceived as binding upon the parties indefinitely. The question is always what is the reasonable time for termination notice, and is the termination done in good faith (which is always a tricky and vague issue). Compensation is commonly awarded in accordance with what the courts find as the due notice period that may also entail compensation for damages related to said breach.

    As always, there are exceptions, such as breach of trust toward the manufacturer/franchisor, that may have great impact on any due notice obligations, as far as justification for immediate termination that can be deemed immune to breach of due notice or good faith obligations.

    The truth is the reasonability of the due notice varies from case to case!

    However, Israeli case law is extremely sensitive to the actual reasoning of termination and how genuine it is, as opposed to asserting a tactical breach argument in an attempt to “justify” avoiding a due notice period or adequate compensation.

    In this respect, in many cases simple “non-satisfaction” was denied as a legitimate argument for breach of contract, while safeguarding the freedom of contracts and the right to terminate an ongoing contract with due notice and good faith.

    There are various common parameters referred to in the case law, to determine the adequate time of due notice, including, for instance, the magnitude of investment; the time required for rearrangement of business towards the new situation (including time required to find an alternative supplier product which can be marketed); the magnitude of the product/service out of the entire distributor’s business, etc.

    Time and again, although not as binding rule, the due notice period seems to be in the range of around 12 months, as a balance between the right of termination and the reasonable time for rearranging the business in light of the termination. There were, however, cases in which due notice for termination was deemed as short as three months and as long as two years – but these are rather exceptional.

    Another guiding point in the case law is the factor of exclusivity or non-exclusivity, as well as the concept that the longer the business relationship, the less the distributor/franchisee may expect compensation/reimbursement for investment – based on the concept that he has enjoyed the fruits of the investment.

    The outcome of not providing such adequate due notice might result in actual compensation reflecting the loss of profit of the business in the last year before the termination, or for the whole term the court finds a due notice was in place, or, in cases of bad faith, even a longer period reflecting the damages.

    In conclusion, given the legal regime in Israel, such exposure might be extremely considerable for any international or foreign business. It would, therefore, be vital and as a consequence of real value to plan the strategy of disengagement/termination of the business with the domestic counterpart in Israel, in advance and prior to executing it, and there are, indeed, adequate and wise strategies that may be implemented for the best result.

    It is often the case – in practice – that an ongoing commercial relationship builds slowly over time through a series of sales agreements, without the parties ever signing an actual distribution agreement to set down their respective rights and responsibilities.

    At first blush this might appear to be a good thing: one can sidestep being bound, especially long-term, to the other party. But on closer scrutiny the solution becomes problematic, especially for anyone operating internationally.

    One of the key issues that arises when an international contractual arrangement is not in writing, is identifying the court with jurisdiction over any dispute arising therefrom. In the European Union, the issue is resolved by the provisions of Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussels I recast”). Pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation, as an alternative to the defendant’s courts, jurisdiction in a contractual dispute may lie with the court in the place of performance of the obligation in question. Next to this general rule are two criteria to identify the “place of performance”, differentiated according to the type of contract at issue. For a contract for goods, it is the place of delivery for the goods; in a contract for services, it is the place where the services are provided.   

    Thus, to identify the court with jurisdiction, it is crucial that a contract fall under one of these categories: goods or services.

    No doubt this distinction is quite simple in many circumstances. In the case of a distribution agreement, or of a commercial concession agreement, the issue may become thorny.

    The European Court of Justice has analysed this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in their judgement of 8 March 2018 (Case no. C-64/17) following the request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese Court of Appeal. The parties to the action were a Portuguese distributor, a company called Lusavouga, and a Belgian company called Saey Home & Garden, that produced articles for the home and garden, including a line of products branded “Barbecook”.

    Following Saey’s decision to break off the commercial relationship – notice of which was sent in an email dated 17 July 2014 – Lusavouga brought action in Portugal seeking compensation for the unexpected termination of the agreement, and goodwill indemnity. Saey raised a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Portuguese court, citing their general conditions of sale (mentioned in their invoices) which required that a Court in Belgium be competent for dispute resolution.

    The facts thus presented two issues to be resolved in light of the Brussels I recast Regulation: deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a vendor’s general terms and conditions pursuant to Art. 25 of the Regulation shall apply, and, if not, choosing the court with jurisdiction under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

    Shall a jurisdiction clause contained within a vendor’s general terms and conditions apply to a distribution relationship?

    The supplier company apparently considered their course of dealing with the Portuguese retailer nothing more than a concatenation of individual sales of goods, governed by their general terms and conditions. Consequently, they argued that any dispute arising from the relationship should be subject to the jurisdiction clause identifying Belgium as the court with jurisdiction under those terms and conditions.

    Thus, a determination was needed on whether, under these facts, there was a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 25, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1215/2012.

    The Court of Justice has long opined that if the jurisdiction clause is included in the general contract conditions drafted by one of the parties, the contract signed by the other party must contain an express reference to those general conditions in order to ensure the real consent thereto by the parties (judgement of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani, case no. 24/76; judgement of 16 March 1999, Castelletti, case no. C-159/97; judgement of 7 July 2016, Höszig, case no. C-225/15). Moreover, to be valid, the clause must involve a particular legal relationship (judgement of 20 April 2016, Profit Investment SIM, case no. C-366/13).

    In the instant case, the referring court found it self-evident that the legal relationship at bar was a commercial concession agreement entered into for the purpose of distributing Saey products in Spain, a contract that was not evidenced in writing.

    From this perspective, it is clear that the general conditions contained in the Saey invoices could have no bearing on the commercial concession agreement: assuming Lusavouga’s consent had been proven, the selection of Belgium as the forum would have applied if anything to the individual sales agreements, but not to those duties arising from the separate distribution agreement.

    What, then, would be the court with jurisdiction for the duties arising from the commercial concession agreement?

    Absent any jurisdiction clause, the issue would be decided under Art. 7, point 1 of Regulation 1215/2012, under which it becomes imperative to establish whether a contract is for goods or for services.

    The “provision of services” has been defined by the Court of Justice as an activity, not mere omissions, undertaken in return for remuneration (judgement of 23 April 2009, Falco, case no. C-533/07).

    With the judgements in Corman Collins of 19 December 2013 (case no. C-9/12), and Granarolo of 14 July 2016 (case no. C-196/15), the Court held that in a typical distribution agreement, the dealer renders a service, in that they are involved in increasing the distribution of supplier’s product, and receives in consideration therefor a competitive advantage, access to advertising platforms, know-how, or payment facilities. In light of such elements, the contract relationship should be deemed one for services. If on the other hand the commercial relationship is limited to a concatenation of agreements, each for the purpose of a delivery and pickup of merchandise, then what we have is not a typical distribution agreement, and the contractual relationship shall be construed as one for the sale of goods.

    Once the contract has been categorised as one for services, one must then determine “the place where, under the contract, the services are provided”. The Court specifies that such location shall be understood as the member state of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract  or – as in the case at issue – the actual performance of the same. Only where it is impossible to identify such location shall the domicile of the party rendering the service be used.

    From the referring court’s description of the contractual relationship, and from the Court of Justice’s understanding of the distributor’s performance of services, it would be logical to find that the principal location for performance of services was Spain, where Lusavouga “was involved in increasing the distribution of products” of Saey.

    It is clear that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor would ever have intended such a result, and they might have avoided it being chosen for them by reducing their agreement in writing, including a jurisdiction clause therein.

    By the same token, viewed from the outside, the Portuguese judges’ apparent conviction that the situation was one of an actual dealership contract would leave ample room for debate. After all, a number of elements would lead to the opposite conclusion. However, even in terms of that aspect, the absence of a written contract left room for interpretation that might lead to unforeseen – and perhaps rather risky – consequences.

    In conclusion, the wisdom of setting down the terms and conditions of a sales distribution agreement in writing appears clear. This is not only because one can avoid those ambiguities we have described above, but also because it specifies other important clauses stipulated by the parties that should not be left to chance: exclusivity of area, if any, or with respect to specific sales channels, the contract period and termination notice, any duties to promote the product, control over end-user personal data, and the possibility of, and methods for, any online sales of products.

    根据欧盟电子商务部门的调查，超过50%的互联网市场和36%的零售商提供数据给价格搜索引擎，如 Idealo，谷歌购物Google Shopping，或Shopzilla。相比之下，大约10%的经销商受到价格比较引擎禁令的影响（见委员会工作人员工作文件SWD（2017）154定稿，S.32图B.4和欧盟委员会第37页，电子商务部门调查的最后报告，第10页）。

    不过，联邦法院最近确认，价格比较引擎的禁令是反竞争和无效的。在具体案例中，爱世克斯（跑鞋品牌名）通常禁止德国零售商支持在线分销中的价格搜索引擎：

    “此外，经授权的…经销商不得…通过为这些价格比较引擎提供特定于应用程序的接口（“APIs”）来支持价格比较引擎的功能。”

    此外，该协议还包含了对第三方平台广告的广泛禁止：爱世克斯禁止其授权经销商允许第三方在第三方网站上以任何形式使用爱世克斯的商标，以便直接引导客户访问被授权的爱世克斯经销商的网站。

    爱世克斯的分销协议首先由德国竞争管理机构Bundeskartellamt作为试点案例进行调查(由于许多体育零售商对体育设备制造商的互联网转售限制提出了申诉，因此对阿迪达斯提起了另一起试点案件)。2015年，Bundeskartellamt裁定，爱世克斯对价格比较引擎的禁令违反了反垄断法，因为它将违反第101条(1) TFEU，sec.1 《禁止限制竞争法》。提出的理由是，这种禁令的主要目的是控制和限制价格竞争，而牺牲消费者的利益。这项决定首先得到了Düsseldorf高等地区法院的确认（2017年4月5日的裁决，案件号：VI-Kart 13/15(V)，见Legalmondo文章，点击这里）。

    现在，联邦法院再次确认了这项裁决（2017年12月12日的决定，第KVZ 41/17号案件）。爱世克斯的裁决特别值得注意，因为它是德国法院继欧盟法院关于科蒂（全球最大的香水生产公司）的平台禁令作出裁决裁决之后作出的首项裁决（见Legalmondo的文章，点击这里）。因此，这是法院今后将如何处理互联网转售限制的第一个迹象。

    因此，联邦法院指出，对价格搜索引擎的普遍禁止“至少”要限制向终端消费者的被动销售（第23款, 25款)–这种限制甚至将是这种禁令的预期目的。法院认为，根据《科蒂判决》（点击此出查看），一般平台禁令的可接受性并不意味着一般价格比较禁令的可接受性（第28款及其后款）。尤其是“限制组合”–即第三方平台价格比较引擎和广告宣传禁令–会产生影响。因为它没有确保潜在客户能够“实际进入”经销商网站（第30款） –在这种情况下，联邦最高法院允许提供这种“实质性准入”所需的充分或必要的条件；在这种情况下，一般价格比较引擎禁令仍可继续得到允许。

    实用贴士：

    • 事实上，根据联邦最高法院的判决，Düsseldorf高级地区法院（Asics）和法兰克福高等地区法院（Deuter）已经指出以下区别可能适用于：
    • 一般价格比较引擎禁令是–根据联邦法院–反竞争的，因此通常是无效的–尽管如果不与广泛的广告禁令相结合，这些禁令仍然是允许的，这样就可以保证潜在的客户能够访问经销商网站。
    • 单独的价格比较引擎禁令和使用价格比较门户网站的其他较温和的限制/标准是允许的，例如关于产品插画或说明以及产品环境（例如要求经销商只能提供新产品）。

    进一步了解细节: Rohrßen, Internetvertrieb: „Nicht Ideal(o)“ – Kombination aus Preissuchmaschinen-Verbot und Logo-Klausel, in: ZVertriebsR 2018, 118 ff.

    • 除此之外，制造商可以–在排他性分销网络内–禁止其分销商主动向制造商保留的或由制造商分配给另一分销商的客户提供在线广告，并指明所使用的语言。原则上，所有其他可能的质量标准也是允许的，只要他们和线下分销标准等效（因为“委员会认为，规定网上销售的标准与从实体店销售的标准总体上不等于硬核限制，从而劝阻指定经销商使用互联网接触更多和更多样化的客户的任何义务”，《纵向限制准则》，第56条）。

    有关更多信息，请参见：

    • 有关实践现状的概述，包括示范合约条款：Rohrßen, Vertriebsvorgaben im E-Commerce 2018: Praxisübersichts und Folgen des “Coty”-Urteils des EuGH, in: GRUR-Prax 2018, 39-41 以及
    • 特别是关于平台禁令和可能起草分配协议: Rohrßen, Internetvertrieb von Markenartikeln: Zulässigkeit von Plattformverboten nach dem EuGH-Urteil Coty – Auswirkungen auf Fachhändler- bzw. Selektiv-, Exklusiv-, Franchise- und offene Vertriebsverträge –, in: DB 2018. 300-306.
    • 关于在互联网销售平台中嵌入的搜索功能中是否允许使用商标和公司徽标，见联邦法院最近于2018年2月15日发布的两项裁决（案件号：I ZR 138/16 re “Ortlieb” 和案件号 I ZR 201/1 re “gofit“).

    Benjamin Leventhal

    业务领域

    • 仲裁
    • 公司法
    • 诉讼
    联系方式 Benjamin