Germany: Newsletter, Antitrust Law October 2011

Last Updated: 8 November 2011
Article by Maxim Kleine

1. German Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof] acknowledges the validity of the termination of a press wholesaler by the Bauer publishing house

By judgement dated 24 October 2011 (docket no. KZR 7/10), the Antitrust Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice upheld the validity of the termination of the independent press wholesaler Heinz-Ulrich Grade KG by the Bauer Media Group. According to the Court the publishing house was not obliged to continue supplying its press products to the wholesaler through a joint declaration of the associations nor on grounds of the impediment and discrimination ban pursuant to German antitrust law. The termination did not call into question the freedom of the press protected by the German Constitution [Grundgesetz]. (The full judgement has not yet been published.)


For decades, the wholesale of magazines and newspapers in Germany has been conducted via the press wholesale system ("Presse-Grosso-System"). Through such system, about 70 wholesalers in their respective exclusively allocated distribution territories ("wholesale territorial monopolies") distribute the press products of all publishing houses to about 120,000 retail sales points. Only Hamburg and Berlin have two wholesalers ("double wholesale"). Already in 2004, at the proposal of the Federal Government, the Association of German Magazine Publishers [Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger], the Federation of German Newspaper Publishers [Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger] and the Association of German Book, Newspaper and Magazine Wholesalers [Bundesverband deutscher Buch-, Zeitungs- und Zeitschriften-Grossisten] announced their commitment to the wholesale distribution system by way of a joint declaration. This provides inter alia that wholesalers can only be terminated on grounds of substantiated sustained performance deficiencies and for other materially justified reasons.

At the beginning of 2009 the Bauer Media Group deviated from the official course taken by the associations and terminated the press wholesale distribution agreement with Heinz-Ulrich Grade KG for the Hamburg area. Since then, it has been distributing its magazines in this territory through its own affiliate. Heinz-Ulrich Grade KG took legal action pursuing the continued supply of the press products of Bauer in future.

A brief account of the substantial reasons given by the Federal Court of Justice

  • Bauer Media AG was not prevented from terminating the wholesaler by the joint declaration of the associations. The declaration did not establish any legal effects for the publishing house, since the publishing house had neither acceded to the declaration nor acknowledged the binding nature of the contents thereof, e.g. by amending the wholesaler contracts.
  • The wholesaler's supply claim could not be based on the antitrust impediment and discrimination ban of Sec. 20 para. 1 German Act against Restraints of Competition [Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, ARC"]. No discrimination or inequitable impediment existed. Enterprises are all fundamentally free to personally assume the distribution of the products which they had previously transferred to independent dealers.

The freedom of the press to be borne in mind within the scope of the press wholesalers' activities (Article 5 para. 1 Grundgesetz) must generally be taken

  • into consideration. Although the legislator has allowed price fixing for newspapers and magazines in order to protect the freedom of the press (Sec. 30 ARC), this is not called into question through the termination of the wholesaler contract. There is no mandatory connection between price fixing and territorially exclusive delivery.
  • The interests of the magazine retailers were not being impaired. The examples of Hamburg and Berlin already showed that no difficulties existed with regard to the "double wholesale" in operation there.
  • Smaller publishing houses were not being prevented from accessing the market. Because of its predominant market position in press distribution in its territory, Heinz-Ulrich Grade KG was obliged to grant all publishers market access there.

It is still being disputed before the Regional Court [Landgericht] of Cologne (upon legal action filed by Bauer) as to whether or not the Federal Association Pressegrosso may negotiate uniform conditions centrally (for members and wholesalers with a participation in publishers) with the publishing houses. Moreover, the Association should refrain from ordering wholesalers to refuse individual negotiations with Bauer.

2. European Court of Justice misses the chance to clarify the right to inspect procedural files of the cartel prosecution authorities (leniency policy)

By judgement dated 14 June 2011, the European Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) acknowledged in the matter Pfleiderer AG versus the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) [Bundeskartellamt] (case C-360/09), that in the absence of a binding European provision, it was the task of the national courts to decide in the specific individual case whether or not the interest of the cartel-damaged party in obtaining information outweighs the interest in maintaining the confidentiality and thus proper functioning and attractiveness of the leniency programme, so that the corresponding documents would have to be disclosed.


The basis herefor was a referral decision of the Local Court [Amtsgericht] of Bonn pursuant to Art. 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) dated 4 August 2009 concerning an application to comprehensively inspect the files of summary proceedings concerning a cartel in the decorative paper sector. The undertaking allegedly damaged by the cartel, Pfleiderer AG, requested the inspection of the files in order to enforce civil law damage claims. Upon application, the Federal Cartel Office merely provided a copy of the ongoing procedural file from which business secrets, internal documents and other documents voluntarily transmitted by the cooperating witness had been removed. The Local Court of Bonn subsequently ordained that the Federal Cartel Office must allow the inspection of the complete, unrevised file. Upon the complaint of the violation of the right to a hearing in court, the Local Court of Bonn stayed execution and presented the ECJ with the question of whether the antitrust provisions of Community law should be interpreted to the effect that cartel-damaged parties may not be allowed access to files in leniency applications or information and documents voluntarily surrendered by leniency applicants in this connection for purposes of asserting civil law claims.

A brief account of the substantial reasons given by the ECJ

  • The ECJ established in its decision that binding stipulations on the access of cartel-damaged parties to documents from leniency programmes were lacking in Community law. In the opinion of the ECJ, Community law does not, however, fundamentally prohibit access to the documents of cooperating witnesses..
  • It is therefore the task of the Member States to agree on regulations in respect of these questions, with it being understood that they may not excessively impede the implementation of Community law ("principle of effectiveness"). It is ultimately the responsibility of the national courts to decide on the access in application of the national provisions and in consideration of the interests protected by Community law.
  • In the opinion of the ECJ, leniency programmes are useful instruments in the fight against cartels, the effectiveness of which most certainly can be impaired by the transmission of documents from leniency proceedings to the damage claimant. However, in the opinion of the ECJ it should be possible to compensate for any damage incurred through an antitrust violation because this would also increase the enforcement powers of the Community's antitrust law.
  • Insofar, in the opinion of the ECJ, within the scope of every application for the granting of full access to the files, an individual case decision ultimately has to be made by the national courts by taking into consideration the opposing interests of the damaged persons on the one hand and the cartel members on the other.

Effects in practical terms

 The key question of the judgement, whether and to what extent the Federal Cartel Office must grant cartel-damaged third parties access to sensitive information voluntarily submitted within the scope of a leniency policy or can guarantee the promised confidentiality of the information received, has ultimately not been answered by the ECJ. The judgement falls below expectations and has failed to create Union-wide legal certainty insofar. Notwithstanding this, several consequences of practical relevance can be derived from the judgement:

  • The judgement can be understood to the effect that besides, the actual "leniency application/corporate statement", all documents above and beyond this that are transmitted during the course of the leniency proceedings fundamentally merit protection. The ECJ generally speaks of "access to documents from leniency proceedings".
  • The judgement runs the risk of different decisions being passed by the courts of the individual Member States as well as by courts within the same jurisdiction, for, according to the ECJ, the balancing of interests should be made on the basis of the relevant national law.
  • In case of cross-border cartels the judgement could motivate damage claimants to a kind of "forum shopping". Accordingly, damage claims could be asserted in the jurisdictions in which the greatest degree of access to the relevant documents is granted.

National legal systems which fundamentally prohibit access to cartel procedural files or make such access subject to the consent of the undertakings concerned must, against the background of the "principle of effectiveness" expressly mentioned by the ECJ, be applied accordingly. Against this background it will hardly be possible to uphold an absolute prohibition of access to the documents of cooperating witnesses. The ECJ will be addressing this issue in the near future (case C.536/11 – Donau Chemie). The Austrian antitrust court presented to the ECJ for decision inter alia the question of whether the Austrian file access provisions contravene Community law in this respect.

3. Reformed European antitrust procedures and the extended role of the Hearing Officer

In October 2011 the European Commission published its reviewed notice on best practices for the conduct of cartel proceedings at the Commission (OJ EU C 308/06 dated 20 October 2011). The aim of the new package of measures is the strengthening of the cooperation between the parties in the antitrust proceedings and the preservation of their procedural rights. The role of the Hearing Officer in all phases of the antitrust proceedings is also strengthened. If differences of opinion exist in respect of the procedural rights of the parties, the latter can refer the matter to the Hearing Officer for antitrust proceedings.

An overview of the substantial reforms

 The revised Commission notice envisages a number of reforms vis-à-vis a draft that was presented in 2010:

  • In the Statement of Objections to the parties the parties are informed of the most important parameters for the imposition of a possible fine (margin no. 84 of the notice)
  • The bilateral state of play meetings have been extended to antitrust matters and, under certain circumstances, complainants will also be included (so-called "triangular meeting", margin no. 67 of the notice)
  • The parties' possibilities of being granted access to the "key submissions" such as documents of the complainant or an interested third party prior to the Statement of Objections, have been improved (margin no. 73 of the notice)
  • Decisions rejecting complaints are to be published in full or as a summary thereof (margin no. 150 of the notice).

During the course of the revision of the Commission notice, the role of the Hearing Officer in respect of the preservation of procedural rights has been strengthened.

  • The role of the Hearing Officer in the preparation and conduct of the oral hearing is strengthened (margin no. 80 of the notice)
  • Throughout the entire proceedings, the Hearing Officer writes reports on the actual exercise of procedural rights (margin no. 80 of the notice)
  • The parties can refer the matter to the Hearing Officer if they do not consider themselves obliged to answer questions which could be self-incriminating (margin no. 36 of the notice)
  • The matter can be referred to the Hearing Officer if an undertaking feels that it has not been (sufficiently) informed of its procedural status (margin no. 15 of the notice)
  • The matter can be referred to the Hearing Officer in cases of differences of opinion concerning the extension of deadlines for answering requests for information (margin no. 40 of the notice)
  • The Hearing Officer mediates in case of problems concerning the legal professional privilege (margin no. 55 of the notice).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions