181 / 469
COMPETITION LAW
167
The CB listed the cumulative conditions for evaluating a refusal to
provide goods as an infringement of competition as follows:
• The necessity of the goods in question: In other words, the
undertaking should have no alternative source from which to
obtain such goods and the goodsmust be essential for its activities.
• Prevention of effective competition
• No objective reason for the refusal
• Damage to consumers
In light of the above determinations, the CB evaluated the complaint
and, first of all, stated that the spare parts which Fer Mas refused to sell
to the private service do not constitute a necessity for the private service
to provide proper services to its clients. In light of the investigations and
interviews made, it is understood that Fer Mas is not the only resource from
which to obtain the mentioned spare parts. Thus, other private services
provided spare parts from different channels. The CB also determined
that it is not possible for Fer Mas to prevent effective competition within
the relevant market since there are alternative ways to obtain provide the
spare parts. Moreover, the CB stated that there is an objective reason for
refusing to provide goods: the lack of a commercial agreement on the
price of the goods. Finally, the CB stated that they are of the opinion that
there is no resulting damage to consumers.
Since the conditions mentioned above are cumulative, the absence of
even one condition would be sufficient to not consider the act in question
a restriction of competition. However, the CB decided that none of these
conditions existed. Therefore, the CB decided not to initiate a further
investigation and rejected the complaint.