BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
United Drug plc/Kodak and Sterling-Winthrop [1994] IECA 367 (28th October, 1994)
Competition
Authority Decision of 28 October 1994 relating to a proceeding under Section 4
of the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No. CA/561/92E - United Drug/Kodak and Sterling-Winthrop.
Decision
No.367
Introduction
1. Notification
was made of an agreement for the distribution of goods between United Drug plc
and Kodak Ireland Ltd. (Kodak) on 30 September 1992 with a request for a
certificate under
Section 4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991 or, in the event of
a refusal by the Competition Authority to issue a certificate, a request for a
licence under
Section 4(2). Notice of intention to issue a certificate was
published in the Irish Times on 16 September 1994. No submissions were
received from interested parties.
The
Facts
(a)
The subject of the notification
2. The
notification relates to an agreement signed in June 1989 whereby United Drug
was appointed on an exclusive basis to deliver orders for pharmacy and
wholesale pharmaceutical customers of Sterling-Winthrop Ireland Ltd (Sterling)
and some orders for customers of Kodak.
(b)
The parties involved
3. United
Drug is a publicly quoted company, having its registered office in Ballina, Co.
Mayo. The principal activities of the company include the wholesaling and
distribution of pharmaceutical products, the marketing and distribution of
consumer products and the supply of medical equipment and consumables. At the
time of notification, Sterling was a wholly owned subsidiary of Kodak, whose
parent is the US owned Eastman Kodak company. Both companies are engaged in
the manufacture and sale of ethical and over-the-counter pharmaceutical
products. In August 1994, it was announced that Sterling had been sold to the
British company SmithKline Beecham.
(c)
The products and the market
4. The
products covered by the notified agreement are ethical and over-the-counter
pharmaceutical products produced by Sterling. The service involved is the
delivery of these products to the customers of Kodak/Sterling.
(d)
The notified agreement
5. The
notified agreement relates to terms and conditions for the delivery by United
Drug of orders for retail pharmacy and wholesale pharmaceutical customers of
Sterling and some orders for customers of Kodak. The Kodak customers are
retail pharmacy and photographic dealer customers beyond an area defined
approximately by a thirty mile radius of Dublin city. Orders from
pharmaceutical wholesalers are to be collected from Kodak for delivery once a
week, or are to be consigned to the Limerick and Ballina depots of United Drug.
There is a daily collection from Kodak of certain orders. A charge is
specified for each type of service rendered. The agreement came into effect on
1 May 1989, for an initial period of 24 months. At the end of the initial
period, it was to be reviewed annually, and, if agreed, to be renewed for a
further 12 month period. Kodak has the right at any time to terminate the
agreement for unsatisfactory performance. The agreement can be terminated at
any time by either party on giving three months' notice.
(e)
Submissions by United Drug
6. In
its initial submission with the notification, United Drug stated that the
agreement did not restrict the parties in their freedom to take independent
commercial decisions. It did not have as its object or effect the prevention,
restriction or distortion of competition. If the Authority, however,
considered that the agreement, or certain aspects of it, infringed
Section
4(1), United Drug submitted that it should grant a licence under
Section 4(2).
United Drug considered that the agreement satisfied the listed criteria, and in
particular that it should be permitted under
Section 4(2) by analogy to EC
Regulation 1983/83. It promised to provide further supporting arguments in due
course, but has not done so.
7. In
response to a query by the Authority on 13 August 1993, United Drug stated, in
a letter of 9 September 1993, that the agreement was a pure delivery agreement,
without purchase for resale, and that it was not an exclusive distribution or a
commercial agency agreement.
Assessment
Applicability
of Section 4(1)
8.
Section
4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991 prohibits and renders void all agreements
between undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention,
restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services in
the State or in any part of the State.
The
Undertakings
9.
Section
3(1) of the
Competition Act defines an undertaking as "a person being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service". United Drug is engaged in the distribution of goods for gain and
Kodak and Sterling are engaged in the supply of goods for gain, and they are
therefore undertakings within the meaning of
Section 3(1) of
the Act. The
agreement is an agreement between undertakings, and it has effect within the
State.
The
Agreement
10. The
essential feature of the notified agreement is that United Drug collects
products from Kodak for delivery to Kodak's customers; in return for the
performance of this service United Drug is paid a fee by Kodak. The agreement
does not involve the purchase and resale of the products by United Drug. The
Authority considers that the agreement involves merely the delivery of Kodak
products by United Drug, on an exclusive basis. It considers that undertakings
are entitled to decide how their products shall be distributed to their
customers. In general, distribution agreements involving delivery only do not,
in the Authority's opinion, offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act.
While certain clauses in a delivery agreement might offend against
Section
4(1), none of the clauses in the notified agreement, in the opinion of the
Authority, do so offend.
The
Decision
11. In
the Authority's opinion, United Drug, Kodak and Sterling are undertakings The
notified agreements are agreements between undertakings. The Authority
considers that the delivery agreement does not have, as its object or effect,
the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. It does not, in the
Authority's opinion, offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
The
Certificate
12. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies that in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the delivery agreement between United Drug plc and Kodak
Ireland Ltd (notification No. CA/561/92E), notified on 30 September 1992 under
Section 7, does not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
the Competition Authority
Patrick
M. Lyons
Chairman.
28
October 1994.
© 1994 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1994/367.html