Mediación y contratos de franquicia

12 de abril de 2018

España

Contratos de distribución
Franquicia

Agreements restricting competition are prohibited as anticompetitive agreements by Article 101 TFEU unless the agreement’s impact on trade or competition is not appreciable (cf. the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case, C-226/11, judgment of 13 December 2012). Whether an agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition or is in the «safe harbour» can be assessed according to the European Commission’s De Minimis Notice. Accordingly, an agreement is particularly appreciable if its object is to restrict competition. This applies in particular to so-called hardcore restrictions, such as vertical price maintenance (or resale price maintenance = “RPM”).

Regarding a special offer for dietary products, the German Higher Regional Court of Celle surprisingly took a different view and decided that even resale price maintenance could be considered non-appreciable and thus falling outside the ban of anticompetitive business practices under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 07.04.2016, Case 13 U 124/15 [Kart]). In this case, the manufacturer made a special offer to a group of its customers (pharmacies) with a special purchase discount: once, for a limited period and limited to a maximum quantity. In return, the customers should commit themselves to «present the product clearly… and not fall below a resale price of EUR 15.95«.

The Hanover Regional Court had instead seen the agreement as an unlawful resale price maintenance (judgment of 25 August 2015, Case 18 O 91/15) – and now the German Federal Court confirmed the same: the minimum prices specified here within the advertising campaign appreciably restrict competition and are thus banned as anticompetitive business practice under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 17 October 2017, Case KZR 59/16). This corresponds to the case law of the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case (see above) and the German Federal Court with regard to the sales requirement «one bar extra « (i.e. without extra charge compared to the usual package size) of the Italian confectionery manufacturer Ferrero (judgment of 08.04.2003, Case KZR 3/02) – because the latter explicitly concerns «the scope for price increases resulting from the increased contents of the package» – not, however, the retailer’s decision to set prices freely downwards.

Practical tips

Vertical price fixing is generally prohibited, whereas providing a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP, also “recommended retail price”) and maximum selling prices are allowed – this is briefly the principle of German and European antitrust law on pricing frameworks. Furthermore, recommended retail prices and maximum selling prices (“MSP”) are subject to the restriction that they » they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties” (Article 4 lit. a Vertical Block Exemptions Regulation). That means:

the manufacturer or supplier may provide guidance,
however, the reseller may set his sales prices freely.

Exceptions may apply – in addition to the RPM on the price of books or in the case of specialisation agreements – by way of the efficiency defence under Article 101 (3) TFEU in individual cases, e.g.

in the introductory period when launching new products on the market, or
in the case of short-term special offers if accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency, for example by investing the higher margin into better customer advice, which benefits all customers and Resale Price Maintenance prevents retailers who do not offer the customer advice from free riding (cf. EU Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, para. 225).

Such actions, however, require excellent preparation because manufacturers can only set resale prices for very short periods if they can convincingly demonstrate efficiency gains such as preventing free-riders.

In the case of fixed prices, the competition authorities quickly become sensitive. For example, fines for vertical price maintenance have recently been imposed again in Germany. In this respect, special care must be taken particularly in distribution and sales agreements.

Correspondingly, each company’s sales team should continue following the previous case law on recommended retail prices, maximum selling prices and discount campaigns. Guidance for the practice is provided by

the Federal Cartel Office’s paper of July 2017 on the prohibition of fixed prices in stationary food retailing,
the European Commission’s De Minimis Notice, the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (para. 48 et seq., 223 et seq.) and the „Guidance on restrictions of competition «by object» for the purpose of defining which agreements may benefit from the De Minimis Notice“ – all three, however, must always be assessed in the light of current case law because the understanding of the EU Commission contained in these documents does not bind neither the courts nor the national antitrust authorities.

Geoblocking is a discriminatory practice preventing customers (mainly on-line customers) from accessing and/or purchasing products or services from a website located in another member State, because of the nationality of the customer or his place of residence or establishment.

The EU Regulation no. 2018/302 of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geoblocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market will enter into force on 2 December 2018.

The current situation

The EU Commission carried out a «mystery shopping» survey on over 10 000 e-commerce websites in the EU. The geoblocking figures are quite high! 63% of the websites do not let shoppers to buy from another EU country (even 86% for electric household appliances and 79% for electronics and computer hardware).

The survey shows also that 92% of on-line retailers require customers to register on their website and to provide them with e-mail address, physical address and telephone number. The registration is denied most of the time because of a foreign delivery address for 27% of the websites. Almost half of the websites give no information about the place of delivery while shopping on the website although this information on delivery restrictions has to be provided in due time during the shopping process. At the end, according to this EC survey, only 37% of the websites truly allow e-shoppers to freely buy on-line from another EU country (without restriction as regards place of establishment, place of delivery and mean of payment).

On the other side, only 50% of European customers buy products from on-line shops based in another EU member State while the value and the volume of e-commerce, globally speaking increase thoroughly year after year, but only on a domestic scope not throughout Europe.

On 23 June 2017, the European Council asked for a real implementation of the Digital Single Market strategy in all its elements including cross border partial delivery, consumer protection and prohibition of undue geoblocking.

The lack of the current legal frameworks

The service directive (n°2006/123/CE) and article 101 of the TFUE address already the discrimination practices based on nationality or place or residence or establishment.

According to article 20 (2) of the service directive, the EU member States must ensure that professionals do not treat customers differently based on their place of residence or establishment or nationality (unless objective exception). On the other side, EU competition law on vertical restraints (article 101 TFUE and the block exemption regulation and its guidelines) considers restrictions on passive sales as hard core restrictions violating EU competition rules. However, both set of rules (service directive and competition law framework) appear not to be fully effective in practice.

With this respect, the recent report of the European commission about the competition enquiry in the e-commerce sector shows, among others, that geoblocking was used at a large scale within the European e-commerce sector.

The aim of the geoblocking regulation

The goal of the geoblocking regulation is to prevent professionals from implementing direct or indirect discrimination based on the nationality, the place of residence or the place of establishment of their customers when dealing with cross border e-commerce transactions.

The scope of the geoblocking regulations

The new Regulation will only apply to online sales between businesses and end-user consumers or businesses.

The new Regulation will apply to websites operated within the European Union or to websites operated outside the European Union but proposing goods or services to customers established throughout in the European Union.

What are the new rules of management of an e-commerce website?

As regards the access to the website

Under the Regulation, a business may neither block nor restrict, through the use of technological measures, access to their online interfaces for reasons related to nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of an internet user. However, businesses are authorized to redirect customers to a different website than the one they were trying to access provided the customer expressly agrees thereto and can still easily visit the website version they originally tried to access.

As regards the terms and conditions of sales of the website

The Regulation forbids businesses from applying different general conditions of access to goods or services according to a customer’s nationality or place of residence or place of establishment (as identified by their IP address in particular) in the following three cases:

where the goods sold by the business are delivered in a different member state to which the business offers delivery (or where the goods are collected at a location jointly agreed upon by the business and the customer);
where the business offers electronically supplied services such as cloud, data storage, hosting services etc. (but not services offering access to copyright-protected content such as streaming or online-gaming services);
where the business supplies services received by the customer in a country in which the business also operates (such as car rental and hotel accommodation services or ticketing services for sporting or cultural events).

As regards the means of payment on the website

The Regulation forbids businesses from applying different conditions for payment transactions to accepted means of payment for reasons related to a customer’s nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, or to the location of the payment account or the place of establishment of the payment service provider (provided that authentication requirements are fulfilled and that payment transactions are made in a currency accepted by the business).

What are the impacts of this regulation on e-retailers?

Although formally excluded from the scope of the Regulation, relations between suppliers and distributors or wholesalers will still be impacted by it since provisions of agreements between businesses under which distributors undertake not to make passive sales (e.g., by blocking or restricting access to a website) for reasons related to a customer’s nationality, place of residence or place of establishment “shall be automatically void”.

The geoblocking regulation therefore impacts distributors twofold: first, directly in their relations with customers (end-user consumers or user-businesses), and second, indirectly in regard to their obligations under the exclusive distribution agreement.

The geoblocking regulation shall have to be coordinated with the existing competition law framework, especially the guidelines on vertical restraints which set up specific rules applying to on-line sales. On-line sales are likened to passive sales. The guidelines mention four examples of practices aiming to indirectly guarantee territorial protection which are prohibited when supplier and exclusive distributor agree:

that the exclusive distributor shall prevent customers in another territory from visiting their website or shall automatically refer them to the supplier’s or other distributors’ websites,
that the exclusive distributor shall terminate an online sale if the purchaser’s credit card data show that the purchaser is not from the exclusive distributor’s exclusive territory,
to limit the share of sales made by the exclusive distributor through the internet (but the contract may provide for minimum offline targets in absolute terms and for online sales to remain coherent compared to offline sales).
that the exclusive distributor shall pay a higher price for goods intended for sale on the internet than for goods intended for sale offline.

Manufacturers will have to decide whether they adopt a unique European gateway website or multiple local commercial offers, it being known that price differentiation is still possible per category of clients.

Indeed, the new Regulation does not oblige the e-retailers to harmonize their price policies, they must only allow EU consumers to access freely and easily to any version of their website. Likewise, this Regulation does not oblige e-retailers to ship products all over Europe, but just allow EU consumers to purchase goods from whichever website they want and to arrange the shipment themselves, if need be.

Finally on a more contractual level, it is not very clear yet how the new geoblocking rules could impact directly or indirectly the conflict of law rules applicable to consumer contracts, as per the Rome I regulation especially when the consumer will be allowed to handover the product purchased on a foreign website in the country of this website (which imply no specific delivery in the country where the consumer is established).

Therefore B2C general terms and conditions of websites would need to be reviewed and adapted on both marketing and legal sides.

Una vez convencidos de la utilidad de la mediación como método de solucionar conflictos entre franquiciador y franquiciado y tomada la decisión de incluir en los contratos una cláusula que la prevea, el último paso sería qué elementos debemos tener en cuenta a la hora de redactarla.

La negociación previa. Parece recomendable que ambas partes se concedan la posibilidad de intentar resolver el problema con una negociación formal previa. La mediación no excluye el intento previo llevado a cabo por los interesados o sus abogados, no obstante, parece recomendable que se prevea contractualmente un plazo adecuado a las circunstancias. La experiencia demuestra que alargar demasiado esta fase puede producir como resultado que el conflicto se vaya agravando y resulte más complicado incluso acercarse a la mediación.
La cláusula puede igualmente prever el lugar en el que la mediación se llevará a cabo. De nuevo en este punto las partes son libres. Es conveniente que éste sea preciso indicando la ciudad.
El idioma en el que va a desarrollarse la mediación es facultad de las partes. No habrá dificultad en mediaciones en las que ambas partes usen el mismo idioma, pero es muy conveniente en contratos con partes que los tengan diferentes, o que pertenezcan a regiones o países con diferentes lenguas cooficiales. La redacción o firma del contrato en un idioma concreto no presupone que ese haya de ser el idioma de la mediación. Es un elemento a tener muy en cuenta también a la hora de solicitar un mediador que pueda usar dicho idioma en la institución de mediación elegida.
El procedimiento puede decidirse igualmente por las partes. En particular, el número de sesiones, la duración máxima prevista, la participación de asesores, etc. Téngase en cuenta que la mayor o menor regulación permitirá evitar futuros conflictos al respecto, aunque también supondrá enmarcar más la libertad de las partes que, no obstante, permanecerán libres para modificar de común acuerdo lo pactado.
El plazo de duración de la mediación puede igualmente contemplarse. Ello permitiría, por ejemplo, evitar que la mediación se alargue únicamente con fines estratégicos meramente procesales o para recabar información de la otra parte antes de iniciar un procedimiento, etc. Los mediadores profesionales, no obstante, son capaces de identificar estas maniobras teniendo la facultad también de poner ellos mismos fin a la mediación en caso de constatarlas.
Elegir al mediador o a la institución de mediación es una elección importante. Las partes pueden ponerse de acuerdo sobre quién será su mediador, indicar en el contrato los elementos para elegirlo, o someterse directamente a una Institución de Mediación para que sea ésta quien lo designe conforme a sus propias reglas. Estas decisiones pueden ser alternativas (es decir, que las partes se pongan de acuerdo sobre el mediador y, en caso de falta de acuerdo, someterse a una institución que lo nombre), o pueden ser únicas. La designación de una Institución requiere que tenga la suficiente garantía de estabilidad (evitar designar instituciones de corta trayectoria o sin demasiada garantía de futuro), con un panel suficiente de mediadores en función de las características de la mediación (idioma, competencia, experiencia) y que permita la flexibilidad necesaria para su funcionamiento.
Por último, es conveniente que la cláusula incluya una vía alternativa en caso de que la mediación no llegue a buen puerto bien porque las partes no llegan a un acuerdo, bien porque se retiran de la mediación. Recordemos que la mediación no cierra las puertas a que el conflicto sea resuelto mediante el recurso a la jurisdicción ordinaria o al arbitraje. Y en materia de arbitraje especializado en contratos de distribución el IDArb (https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project) es una excelente opción.

«Rimowa owner terminates all distributor agreements in Europe» – headlined the leading German business newspaper “Handelsblatt” on 19 March 2018. The reason for termination is that Rimowa, the well-known manufacturer of high quality branded cases – after 2011 now again in 2018 – redesigns its distribution network: Rimowa aims at raising its quality selection criteria again, away from selling its products in the old-fashioned shop, to a modern shopping experience.

In principle, manufacturers can freely design and develop their distribution system according to their marketing strategy and any changing needs. Likewise, they are in principle free to choose the number and name of their sales intermediaries (distributors/dealers, franchisees, agents, etc.). They are in principle also free to switch to selective distribution, with the aim of aligning the distribution of their products with certain criteria (in particular: regarding the quality of distribution), thus possibly also reducing the number of distributors. However, as an exception, distributors may force the manufacturer to supply them anyway – namely if the manufacturer has a significant market power. In such a case, an obligation to contract with a distributor, resulting in an obligation to deliver may follow from the prohibition of discrimination (laid down in sec. 19 para. 1, 2 no. 1, 20 German Act against Restraints of Competition).

This issue becomes especially practically relevant if a manufacturer redesigns its distribution network – just like Rimowa did before and now does again. Rimowa switched to selective distribution in 2011/2012 (for the advantages of selective distribution and possible restrictions of distribution, see the Legalmondo article here). To redesign its distribution network, Rimowa terminated the former distributor agreements and offered to conclude new ones – according to which the distributors newly committed themselves to present the goods in a certain way and buy and use Rimowa’s shop-in-shop system. According to Rimowa, the appearance of a former distributor did not correspond to the new business concept and the new marketing strategy, which is why the parties could not agree on concluding a new agreement. Thereupon, the distributor filed an action, aiming at the conclusion of a new dealer contract and thus delivery of his shops.

The District Court of Munich denied the claim (decision of 09.09.2014, ref. no. 1 HKO 7249/13), the Higher Regional Court of Munich, however, affirmed such claim (decision of 17.09.2015, ref. no. U 3886/14 Kart) – arguing that the manufacturer had a leading position in the relevant «market for high-priced and high-quality suitcases» or, conversely, that the distributor had a dependency if and because the manufacturer’s suitcases could not be replaced by equivalent others. Such dependency would in particular be indicated through a high distribution rate (i.e. the manufacturer supplied a large number of comparable distributors) as well as the unique design and the associated high recognition value. Now, the Federal Court of Justice overturned the judgment and remanded for a new trial (decision of 12.12.2017, ref. no. KZR 50/15). Reason: the distributor’s assortment-related dependency (“Spitzenstellungsabhängigkeit” as special case of “Sortimentsbedingte Abhängigkeit”) on the manufacturer was not sufficiently proven. Although a high distribution rate was regularly decisive, it might be less meaningful in qualitative selective distribution systems as the present one. Decisive for redesigning distribution systems:

«If a supplier chooses to switch to a qualitative selective distribution system at a certain point in time, an assortment-related dependency is regularly indicated by a high distribution rate in the period before.» (Para. 19)

The manufacturer can especially bring forward two arguments against such alleged assortment-related dependency, namely that

(i) the number of distributors the manufacturer himself supplied with his products is much lower than the total number of distributors that offered his products (i.e. including those buying the products from other sources), and that

(ii) the distribution rate is to be determined on the basis of those distributors who are comparable to the distributor demanding access to the distribution system and delivery (para. 27) – as the German Federal Court previously stated in terms of designer upholstery (decision of 09.05.2000, ref. no. KZR 28/98, p. 12 et seq.).

Practical conclusions

“There is nothing more constant than change”: When redesigning the distribution system, carefully consider if you want / need transitional arrangements – or better leave them out. One very good reason to leave them out: they might make it more difficult to exclude unwanted distributors. Thus, in the Rimowa case, the Higher Regional Court Munich rejected the manufacturer’s objection that the distributor’s business model «aimed at bargain hunters» – arguing that the manufacturer gave other distributors time of «12 months after conclusion of the agreement» to fulfil the new qualitative criteria.
For qualitative criteria (also: requirements / specifications) in Internet sales, please see the other articles on Legalmondo, especially on platform bans and price comparison bans.

It is not only since the days of the Internet that brand manufacturers have had to contend with the fact that original products are offered outside of their authorized sales channels. The problem has since been significantly exacerbated, however. The relevant products are also referred to as gray market products.

The internal market of the European Economic Area makes it possible to exploit certain price advantages – that is, purchasing in one Member State at a price that is lower than in other Member States and selling to the end customer while passing on (or not passing on) the purchasing advantage. This is made possible by the “exhaustion regime”, according to which the sale of products, which at one time were made available in the European Economic Area with the copyright holder’s consent, cannot be prohibited.

Brand manufacturers’ attempts to counter this issue by means of distribution systems may be an effective instrument, but only if all distribution partners adhere to it. If a distribution partner pulls out, trademark owners (at least in Germany) are initially required to contact their distribution partner who is acting contrary to the contract. That is difficult when the distribution channel of the products in question cannot be traced by security systems (such as SKU numbers) beyond any doubt. A right to information against a third party generally does not exist. Thus, neither the distribution system itself nor the suspicion that the products are not of EU origin may be used easily to justify a right to information in selective or exclusive distribution. The Federal Court of Justice, for example, sees no reason to deviate from the exhaustion doctrine when implementing a selective distribution system (Federal Court of Justice, 1 ZR 63/04). In the case of a selective or exclusive distribution system (Federal Court of Justice, I AR 52/10), the burden of proof is reversed. Accordingly, it is initially the brand manufacturer itself that is responsible for providing evidence for its allegation of a non-EU product.

Exceptions are only made where, for example, the SKU numbers were modified, since this makes clarification difficult. In such cases, trademark infringement and at the same time breach of competition law are given by way of exception and it is not possible for the dealer to invoke exhaustion (Federal Court of Justice I ZR 1/98). The deliberate misleading of the authorized dealer by a third party to breach the contract is also recognized as an exception (Federal Court of Justice I ZR 96/04), which regularly is not verifiable, however.

By the way, the sensational December 2017 Coty decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU C-230/16) (here you can find more: https://www.legalmondo.com/2017/12/eu-court-justice-allows-online-sales-restrictions-coty-case/) has not changed this basic presumption, either. In its Coty decision, the CJEU in the end confirms the exhaustion priority also and particularly for luxury products by referring to existing case law (specifically ECJ C-59/08).

————————————-

Need help with your International Distribution Contracts?

Click the button below to Receive Support from our Expert Lawyers thanks to the Online Help Desk

Distribution Online Help Desk

————————————-

There are, however, more options available. As confirmed by the ECJ (ECJ, C-337/95), an exemption from the exhaustion principle already applies when the type of sale may be designed to damage the reputation of the trademark. In the Court’s opinion, this applies to the sale of products at discounters, if such a sale damages the reputation of the products to an extent that their luxurious image and quality is called into question (ECJ, C-59/08). This applies, on the one hand, if other products are sold in the immediate “neighborhood” to the branded product, without meeting the same quality requirements (ECJ, C-337/95) or if the advertising methods are unsuitable (ECJ, C-63/97). Hamburg Regional Court, for example, found that the use of photographs that are unsuitable and detrimental to the luxury image of a brand justifies a prohibition claim (at least with respect to use of the photos) (Hamburg Regional Court, 315 O 339/13). The Federal Court of Justice saw improper handling of the brand in an erroneous and negligent labeling of products (Federal Court of Justice, I ZR 72/11).

Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court has now also followed these CJEU guidelines by prohibiting the sale of high-priced cosmetic products, which are distributed in the framework of a strictly regulated selective distribution system, at a discounter (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, I-20 U 113/17). The Court explicitly referenced the CJEU, by repeating its principles and then applying them in the case of the discounter:

“The permanent and extensive sale of the cosmetic products at issue on the online platform www…de is suitable to significantly impair the image of the application brands. The way in which the products are presented there draws the application brands into the mundane and ordinary. As the relevant public is used to from the multitude of Respondent’s conventional self-service department stores, the offering on www…de of everyday products is frequently dominated in the form of particularly low priced own labels, such as Z.’s own label “O.” Respondent’s motto applies here as well. The assortment ranges from food to electronics, household goods, clothing to cosmetics. Since Respondent’s online presence was merged with that of the company “B” that it had acquired, it is moreover not only Respondent that offers its goods for sale on the platform, but also third parties may market goods via the online platform. The portal is designed to be functional and oriented toward products that are on sale. Customers are able to collect PAYBACK points with each purchase and may make use of financing. In some cases, goods are advertised at “instead of prices” and red letters indicate in attention-getting manner what percentage customers will save compared to the original prices. Product consultation does not take place.”

By offering luxury products at random alongside every-day and mass products without any kind of prominent presentation and becoming affordable through financing options, the products would be placed on a level with the other items offered, thereby significantly affecting the prestige value of the products. For this reason, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court pronounced a complete ban on distribution for the online platform and the department stores.

Conclusion:

Even if the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision is not to be considered revolutionary in light of existing CJEU case law, it certainly ensures some impetus in proceeding against gray market dealers, since national courts are now no longer facing the “uncomfortable” hurdle of applying CJEU case law, but rather in the customary fairway of national case law. In principle, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court case law may not be understood as a blank check, however. Even Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court did not allow a general ban, but rather weighed individually whether the distribution in its concrete form could be prohibited. In the future, it will also be important to work out what in particular will determine the extent of the ban.

The author of this post is Ilja Czernik.

Hemos visto en un anterior comentario las ventajas de la mediación como método alternativo para la solución de los conflictos en los contratos de franquicia. A partir de ahí, ¿qué recomendaciones podríamos dar para servirse mejor de la mediación? Aunque habrá que adaptarlos a cada caso concreto, los siguientes puntos nos parecen muy beneficiosos:

Prever expresamente en el contrato una cláusula de mediación como vía de solución de conflictos. Aunque el franquiciado y franquiciador puedan ponerse de acuerdo en mediar una vez surja el conflicto sin haberlo reflejado en el contrato, será seguramente más complicado hacerlo cuando ambos ya han iniciado las discrepancias. Es preferible, por lo tanto, hacerlo antes: coloca a las partes en mejor predisposición, elegirán mejor el procedimiento, la institución y el mediador, las formalidades, etc.
Si las partes han acordado un pacto de mediación ésta podrá iniciarse a instancia únicamente de una de ellas, sin necesidad de tener que volver a llegar a un acuerdo.
El pacto o cláusula de mediación es recomendable, además, porque una vez acordado y existiendo una solicitud de inicio de la mediación se suspenderán los plazos de prescripción o caducidad de las acciones judiciales y ello hasta la terminación de la mediación.
Existiendo dicho pacto y habiendo iniciado la mediación, los tribunales no podrán conocer de tales controversias durante el tiempo en que se desarrolle la mediación, siempre que la parte a quien interese lo invoque mediante declinatoria.
En la cláusula, es conveniente prever algunos elementos, tales como qué asuntos podrán ser objeto de mediación (todos o solo algunos), la necesidad o no de una negociación previa, unos plazos adecuados para evitar que este procedimiento pueda usarse para retrasar otras vías, la ley aplicable a la mediación y al acuerdo que se alcance con ella, la jurisdicción competente para la adopción de medidas cautelares, en su caso, o la jurisdicción o arbitraje para dirimir el conflicto en caso de fracaso de la mediación.
Es cierto que uno de los principios de la mediación es su carácter voluntario. Sin embargo, la existencia de la cláusula y obligarse a asistir al menos a una sesión informativa antes de iniciar cualquier procedimiento judicial puede convencer de sus ventajas aun a la parte más reticente.
Incluirlo dentro de la información precontractual que el franquiciador debe entregar a los potenciales franquiciados. Aunque la norma española no parece exigir expresamente que se haga referencia a los métodos de resolución de conflictos entre las partes, ese parece un momento óptimo para mostrar la transparencia y la voluntad de solución de posibles problemas de forma ágil. Predispone, además, al buen entendimiento, la cooperación y la buena fe de la marca franquiciada desde antes del comienzo de las relaciones.
Seleccionar adecuadamente la institución de mediación a la que remitirse en caso de conflicto o previendo la forma de elegir el mediador más adecuado. Actualmente hay muchas que ofrecen garantías de imparcialidad. Puede ser relevante que se trate de un mediador con formación específica, que facilite la comunicación y confianza de las partes y en la medida de lo posible, que pueda comprender bien la naturaleza de la franquicia. Existen en España instituciones como la Fundación Signum (http://fundacionsignum.org/) or MediaICAM del Colegio de Abogados de Madrid (https://mediacion.icam.es) que pueden ser buenas elecciones.

According to the EU E-commerce sector inquiry, over 50% of Internet marketplaces and 36% of retailers supply data-feeds to price search engines such as Idealo, Google Shopping, or Shopzilla. By contrast, around 10% of dealers are subject to price comparison engine bans (see Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 154 final, S. 32 Figure B. 4 and p. 37 European Commission, Final report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry, p. 10).

However, the Federal Court of Justice recently confirmed a price comparison engine ban as anti-competitive and void. In the concrete case, Asics generally banned retailers in Germany from supporting price search engines in online distribution:

«In addition, the authorized … dealer shall not … support the functionality of price comparison engines by providing application-specific interfaces («APIs») for these price comparison engines.»

In addition, the agreement contained an extensive ban on advertising on third-party platforms: Asics prohibited its authorized dealers from allowing third parties to use Asics’ trademarks in any form on the third party’s website to direct customers to the authorised Asics dealer’s website.

Asics’ distribution agreement was first investigated by the German competition authority Bundeskartellamt as a pilot case (another pilot case was started against Adidas because many sports retailers complained about the Internet resale restrictions of sports equipment manufacturers). In 2015, the Bundeskartellamt decided that Asics’ ban on price comparison engines was contrary to antitrust law, as it would infringe Article 101 (1) TFEU, sec. 1 Act against Restraints on Competition. Reason given was that such ban would primarily aim at controlling and limiting price competition at the expense of consumers. This decision was first confirmed by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (decision of 5 April 2017, case no. VI-Kart 13/15 (V), see the Legalmondo article here).

Now, the decision has been reconfirmed by the Federal Court of Justice (decision of 12 December 2017, case no. KVZ 41/17). This Asics ruling is particularly noteworthy because it is the first German court ruling following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Coty ruling on platform bans (see the Legalmondo article here). It is therefore a first indication of how the courts will deal with Internet resale restrictions in the future.

Thus, the Federal Court of Justice states that the general ban on price search engines «at least» restricted passive sales to end consumers (para. 23, 25) – such a restriction would even be the intended purpose of such ban. According to the court, the admissibility of general platform bans pursuant to the Coty judgment (see here) would not imply the admissibility of general price comparison bans (para. 28 et seq.). In particular, the «combination of restrictions» – i.e. ban of price comparison engines and advertising on third-party platforms – would make the difference. For it did not ensure that prospective customers got «practically substantial access» to the dealer website (para. 30) – whereby the Federal Supreme Court leaves open what is sufficient or necessary to provide such “substantial access”; in such case, general price comparison engine bans could continue to be permissible.

Practical Tips:

At EU level, neither the Court of Justice nor the European Commission have taken a position on the validity of general bans on price comparison engines. In the United Kingdom, however, the Competition and Markets Authority takes a similarly critical view of price search engine bans («BMW changes policy on car comparison sites following CMA action«) as German administrative practice and jurisdiction.
In practice, the following differentiation, already indicated by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Asics) and the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt (Deuter), is thus likely to apply according to the Federal Supreme Court:

General price comparison engine bans are – according to the Federal Court of Justice – anti-competitive and therefore generally void – although they may still be permissible if they are not combined with a broad advertising ban, so that prospective customers are guaranteed access to the dealer website.
Individual price comparison engine bans and other milder restrictions / criteria for the use of price comparison portals are permissible, for example with regard to product illustrations or descriptions and the product environment (such as the requirement that dealers may only offer new products).

Further details: Rohrßen, Internetvertrieb: „Nicht Ideal(o)“ – Kombination aus Preissuchmaschinen-Verbot und Logo-Klausel, in: ZVertriebsR 2018, 118 ff.

Moreover, manufacturers may – within an exclusive distribution network – prohibit their distributors active online advertising to customers reserved to the manufacturer or allocated by the manufacturer to another distributor and specify the languages used. In principle, all other conceivable quality criteria are also permissible, provided that they are equivalent to the criteria for offline distribution (because “the Commission considers any obligations which dissuade appointed dealers from using the internet to reach a greater number and variety of customers by imposing criteria for online sales which are not overall equivalent to the criteria imposed for the sales from the brick and mortar shop as a hardcore restriction”, Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, para. 56).

For more information, see

the overview of the current state of practice including model contract clauses: Rohrßen, Vertriebsvorgaben im E-Commerce 2018: Praxisübersichts und Folgen des «Coty»-Urteils des EuGH, in: GRUR-Prax 2018, 39-41 as well as
especially on platform bans and the possible drafting of distribution agreements: 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.

For the permissibility of the use of trademarks and company logos within a search function embedded in an Internet sales platform, see the press release of the Federal Court of Justice on its two very recent decisions of 15.02.2018 (case no. I ZR 138/16 re «Ortlieb» and case no. I ZR 201/16 re «gofit«).

Es recomendable que los contratos de franquicia prevean con claridad la forma de solucionar y afrontar los potenciales conflictos. La relación entre franquiciador y franquiciado pueden tener cierta dificultad debida, por ejemplo, a la ausencia de regulación específica de su contenido (al menos en España) y a que sus elementos están contenidos en normas diferentes. En realidad, cuanto diré sirve para otros contratos de distribución, o en general de colaboración, aunque me centraré en la franquicia por sus características especiales.

Los conflictos entre franquiciado y franquiciador pueden abarcar múltiples aspectos jurídicos y comerciales: suministros del producto, marcas, know-how, la exclusividad y el territorio, la no competencia, promoción y publicidad, ventas a través de Internet… Y todo ello, en un contexto en el que, con frecuencia, ambas partes quieren mantener la colaboración y conservar las buenas relaciones.

¿Cómo afrontar, entonces, estos conflictos potenciales? Un primer paso suele ser la negociación directa entre las partes y sus asesores quienes tenemos la labor de serles útiles en esta actividad. Pero ello no siempre termina con un resultado positivo. Y el paso casi natural cuando eso ocurre suele ser el inicio de un procedimiento judicial precedido a menudo por una serie de requerimientos formales previos.

Sin embargo, hay una vía que, teniendo en cuenta los elementos característicos del contrato de franquicia y la naturaleza de los posibles conflictos, puede ser un método alternativo excelente y privilegiado para solucionarlos: la mediación. Veamos por qué:

En la mediación no hay un tercero que imponga su decisión sobre el conflicto. El franquiciador y el franquiciado lo resuelven por ellos mismos con la ayuda de un profesional (el mediador) que, de forma neutral e independiente, utiliza sus habilidades y conocimientos específicamente adquiridos (ayuda para identificar intereses de las partes, escucha activa, legitimación…) para que ambos puedan llegar a un consenso. El mediador no asesora (las partes pueden acudir con sus respectivos asesores), no decide ni sentencia, sino que ayuda a que sean las partes quienes encuentren la solución que más satisface a ambas: ellas mejor que nadie conocen el negocio, su evolución, los aspectos quizás no previstos en el contrato y el futuro que quieren para sí.
La mediación es un modo de solución de conflictos armonizado en la Unión Europea mediante la Directiva 2008/52/CE sobre ciertos aspectos de la mediación en asuntos civiles y mercantiles. Esto permite que las partes en diferentes Estados miembros puedan estar familiarizadas con ella, se pueda por tanto prever un sistema unificado en contratos con partes internacionales, y sea más fácil la ejecución de los acuerdos alcanzados.
La mediación permite, por lo tanto, satisfacer a ambas partes mejor que la alternativa judicial y con soluciones más creativas que un juez nunca va a poder aplicar. A diferencia de un procedimiento judicial donde normalmente uno vence y otro es vencido, la mediación puede hacer confluir los intereses de franquiciado y franquiciador y que, de esa forma, ambos obtengan una mejor respuesta. Permite un formato menos beligerante y más amistoso que puede resultar muy útil ya que en muchas ocasiones las disputas no tienen demasiada entidad como para ir a los tribunales, o se refieren a aspectos no esenciales de la relación, o pueden afrontarse desde perspectivas más globales o con referencias a parámetros objetivos. Además, con frecuencia, franquiciado y franquiciador quieren seguir manteniendo su relación comercial y, mediante la mediación, solucionado el conflicto, ello será posible (impensable, sin embargo, si hubieran iniciado una confrontación judicial).
La mediación es, en principio, voluntaria. En cualquier momento las partes pueden abandonarla incluso en aquellos Estados miembros o conflictos para los que pueda ser obligatorio asistir al menos a la sesión informativa.
Es un método que se adapta fácilmente a las características de ambas partes: es muy flexible con los formalismos, y son el franquiciador y el franquiciado quienes, con ayuda del mediador, diseñan gran parte del procedimiento para llegar una solución pudiendo controlar su evolución. Además permite una solución mucho más adaptada a su situación concreta, aportar ideas de solución más imaginativas, consiente mejor el diálogo, mantener la relación, distinguir los hechos de las opiniones o juicios de valor, y permite a todos volver antes a sus actividades comerciales ahorrando energías que de otra forma se dedicarían a la gestión del conflicto.
Es un procedimiento más rápido que un juicio, con coste asumible y controlable de antemano.
La mediación es confidencial por lo que se reduce la publicidad del conflicto evitando costes de reputación de la enseña o que se extienda al resto de la red. Lo tratado en una mediación no podrá ser divulgado ni siquiera en un posterior procedimiento judicial.
Ambas partes pueden llegar a una solución que será vinculante para ellas. Además, aun no alcanzándose un acuerdo, con la mediación las partes se encuentran en mejor disposición para continuar la relación y resolver su problema: han podido exponer sus puntos de vista, han sido escuchados y han escuchado, han abierto vías de diálogo, han podido mostrar mayor flexibilidad y, en suma, han mejorado sus relaciones como requisito para poner fin al conflicto y conseguir acuerdos.
El grado de cumplimiento de los conflictos solucionados mediante mediación es mucho más alto que los que impone un juez ya que los acuerdos son más satisfactorios para ellas y han sido las propias partes quienes han decidido qué hacer.
Y, por último, si la mediación no ha funcionado, la posibilidad de reclamar en los tribunales permanece abierta.

Ignacio Alonso

Áreas de práctica

Agencia
Derecho Societario
Contratos de distribución
Franquicia

Contáctanos Ignacio

Otros artículos que te pueden interesar
Otros artículos de Benedikt

España | Franquicia, Teoria Del Riesgo Y Garantia De Los Socios

Contratos de distribución
Litigios

España

Vietnam on the EU Tax Blacklist: A Guide for EU Buyers

Derecho Societario
Contratos de distribución

Vietnam

Brazil’s New Digital Child Protection Law: Practical Implications for Foreign Tech Companies

Privacidad y Protección de Datos

Brasil

France | Pre-contractual disclosure in distribution and franchise agreements

Contratos de distribución
Franquicia

Francia

International distribution agreements | Key Clauses and Lessons learned from the history of Nike

Contratos
Contratos de distribución

Italia

Corporate Sustainability in Practice – How Contracts Shape Responsibility

Contratos
Contratos de distribución

Finland

Rising Oil Prices and International Contracts: How to Manage Hardship in Global Supply Chains

Contratos
Contratos de distribución

Italia

African Continental Free Trade-Agreement - Legalmondo

Why the African Continental Free Trade Agreement has not yet turned into Reality — and What That Means for Egypt

Contratos de distribución
Inversiones extranjeras

Egipto

Crisis Management for Law Firms

Compliance
Litigios

Canadá

P2B Regulation – How to adapt Platform services and Search Engines

Mediación
Contratos de distribución

Europa

Germany – Distribution, Franchise Agreements and Goodwill Indemnity at Termination

Contratos de distribución

Alemania

Germany – Franchising standard form contracts

Franquicia

Alemania

Franchise systems: ad campaigns with low prices can come costly!

Franquicia

Europa
Alemania

Online distribution – Restrictions of online sales: latest decisions

Contratos de distribución

Europa
Alemania

Commercial Agents – Indemnity for termination in trial period?

Agencia

Alemania

Germany – Termination of distribution agreements: Can dealers claim delivery anyway?

Contratos de distribución

Alemania

Germany – Ban of price comparison engines and advertising on third-party platforms

Contratos de distribución
e-commerce

Alemania

El Tribunal de Justicia de la UE admite restricciones en las ventas online (caso Coty)

Comercio internacional
Contratos de distribución

Alemania

Contacta con Ignacio

France – The commercial agency contract

2 de enero de 2018

Francia

Agencia
Contratos de distribución

Agreements restricting competition are prohibited as anticompetitive agreements by Article 101 TFEU unless the agreement’s impact on trade or competition is not appreciable (cf. the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case, C-226/11, judgment of 13 December 2012). Whether an agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition or is in the «safe harbour» can be assessed according to the European Commission’s De Minimis Notice. Accordingly, an agreement is particularly appreciable if its object is to restrict competition. This applies in particular to so-called hardcore restrictions, such as vertical price maintenance (or resale price maintenance = “RPM”).

Regarding a special offer for dietary products, the German Higher Regional Court of Celle surprisingly took a different view and decided that even resale price maintenance could be considered non-appreciable and thus falling outside the ban of anticompetitive business practices under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 07.04.2016, Case 13 U 124/15 [Kart]). In this case, the manufacturer made a special offer to a group of its customers (pharmacies) with a special purchase discount: once, for a limited period and limited to a maximum quantity. In return, the customers should commit themselves to «present the product clearly… and not fall below a resale price of EUR 15.95«.

The Hanover Regional Court had instead seen the agreement as an unlawful resale price maintenance (judgment of 25 August 2015, Case 18 O 91/15) – and now the German Federal Court confirmed the same: the minimum prices specified here within the advertising campaign appreciably restrict competition and are thus banned as anticompetitive business practice under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 17 October 2017, Case KZR 59/16). This corresponds to the case law of the EU Court of Justice in the Expedia case (see above) and the German Federal Court with regard to the sales requirement «one bar extra « (i.e. without extra charge compared to the usual package size) of the Italian confectionery manufacturer Ferrero (judgment of 08.04.2003, Case KZR 3/02) – because the latter explicitly concerns «the scope for price increases resulting from the increased contents of the package» – not, however, the retailer’s decision to set prices freely downwards.

Practical tips

Vertical price fixing is generally prohibited, whereas providing a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP, also “recommended retail price”) and maximum selling prices are allowed – this is briefly the principle of German and European antitrust law on pricing frameworks. Furthermore, recommended retail prices and maximum selling prices (“MSP”) are subject to the restriction that they » they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties” (Article 4 lit. a Vertical Block Exemptions Regulation). That means:

the manufacturer or supplier may provide guidance,
however, the reseller may set his sales prices freely.

Exceptions may apply – in addition to the RPM on the price of books or in the case of specialisation agreements – by way of the efficiency defence under Article 101 (3) TFEU in individual cases, e.g.

in the introductory period when launching new products on the market, or
in the case of short-term special offers if accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency, for example by investing the higher margin into better customer advice, which benefits all customers and Resale Price Maintenance prevents retailers who do not offer the customer advice from free riding (cf. EU Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, para. 225).

Such actions, however, require excellent preparation because manufacturers can only set resale prices for very short periods if they can convincingly demonstrate efficiency gains such as preventing free-riders.

In the case of fixed prices, the competition authorities quickly become sensitive. For example, fines for vertical price maintenance have recently been imposed again in Germany. In this respect, special care must be taken particularly in distribution and sales agreements.

Correspondingly, each company’s sales team should continue following the previous case law on recommended retail prices, maximum selling prices and discount campaigns. Guidance for the practice is provided by

the Federal Cartel Office’s paper of July 2017 on the prohibition of fixed prices in stationary food retailing,
the European Commission’s De Minimis Notice, the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (para. 48 et seq., 223 et seq.) and the „Guidance on restrictions of competition «by object» for the purpose of defining which agreements may benefit from the De Minimis Notice“ – all three, however, must always be assessed in the light of current case law because the understanding of the EU Commission contained in these documents does not bind neither the courts nor the national antitrust authorities.

Geoblocking is a discriminatory practice preventing customers (mainly on-line customers) from accessing and/or purchasing products or services from a website located in another member State, because of the nationality of the customer or his place of residence or establishment.

The EU Regulation no. 2018/302 of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geoblocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market will enter into force on 2 December 2018.

The current situation

The EU Commission carried out a «mystery shopping» survey on over 10 000 e-commerce websites in the EU. The geoblocking figures are quite high! 63% of the websites do not let shoppers to buy from another EU country (even 86% for electric household appliances and 79% for electronics and computer hardware).

The survey shows also that 92% of on-line retailers require customers to register on their website and to provide them with e-mail address, physical address and telephone number. The registration is denied most of the time because of a foreign delivery address for 27% of the websites. Almost half of the websites give no information about the place of delivery while shopping on the website although this information on delivery restrictions has to be provided in due time during the shopping process. At the end, according to this EC survey, only 37% of the websites truly allow e-shoppers to freely buy on-line from another EU country (without restriction as regards place of establishment, place of delivery and mean of payment).

On the other side, only 50% of European customers buy products from on-line shops based in another EU member State while the value and the volume of e-commerce, globally speaking increase thoroughly year after year, but only on a domestic scope not throughout Europe.

On 23 June 2017, the European Council asked for a real implementation of the Digital Single Market strategy in all its elements including cross border partial delivery, consumer protection and prohibition of undue geoblocking.

The lack of the current legal frameworks

The service directive (n°2006/123/CE) and article 101 of the TFUE address already the discrimination practices based on nationality or place or residence or establishment.

According to article 20 (2) of the service directive, the EU member States must ensure that professionals do not treat customers differently based on their place of residence or establishment or nationality (unless objective exception). On the other side, EU competition law on vertical restraints (article 101 TFUE and the block exemption regulation and its guidelines) considers restrictions on passive sales as hard core restrictions violating EU competition rules. However, both set of rules (service directive and competition law framework) appear not to be fully effective in practice.

With this respect, the recent report of the European commission about the competition enquiry in the e-commerce sector shows, among others, that geoblocking was used at a large scale within the European e-commerce sector.

The aim of the geoblocking regulation

The goal of the geoblocking regulation is to prevent professionals from implementing direct or indirect discrimination based on the nationality, the place of residence or the place of establishment of their customers when dealing with cross border e-commerce transactions.

The scope of the geoblocking regulations

The new Regulation will only apply to online sales between businesses and end-user consumers or businesses.

The new Regulation will apply to websites operated within the European Union or to websites operated outside the European Union but proposing goods or services to customers established throughout in the European Union.

What are the new rules of management of an e-commerce website?

As regards the access to the website

Under the Regulation, a business may neither block nor restrict, through the use of technological measures, access to their online interfaces for reasons related to nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of an internet user. However, businesses are authorized to redirect customers to a different website than the one they were trying to access provided the customer expressly agrees thereto and can still easily visit the website version they originally tried to access.

As regards the terms and conditions of sales of the website

The Regulation forbids businesses from applying different general conditions of access to goods or services according to a customer’s nationality or place of residence or place of establishment (as identified by their IP address in particular) in the following three cases:

where the goods sold by the business are delivered in a different member state to which the business offers delivery (or where the goods are collected at a location jointly agreed upon by the business and the customer);
where the business offers electronically supplied services such as cloud, data storage, hosting services etc. (but not services offering access to copyright-protected content such as streaming or online-gaming services);
where the business supplies services received by the customer in a country in which the business also operates (such as car rental and hotel accommodation services or ticketing services for sporting or cultural events).

As regards the means of payment on the website

The Regulation forbids businesses from applying different conditions for payment transactions to accepted means of payment for reasons related to a customer’s nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, or to the location of the payment account or the place of establishment of the payment service provider (provided that authentication requirements are fulfilled and that payment transactions are made in a currency accepted by the business).

What are the impacts of this regulation on e-retailers?

Although formally excluded from the scope of the Regulation, relations between suppliers and distributors or wholesalers will still be impacted by it since provisions of agreements between businesses under which distributors undertake not to make passive sales (e.g., by blocking or restricting access to a website) for reasons related to a customer’s nationality, place of residence or place of establishment “shall be automatically void”.

The geoblocking regulation therefore impacts distributors twofold: first, directly in their relations with customers (end-user consumers or user-businesses), and second, indirectly in regard to their obligations under the exclusive distribution agreement.

The geoblocking regulation shall have to be coordinated with the existing competition law framework, especially the guidelines on vertical restraints which set up specific rules applying to on-line sales. On-line sales are likened to passive sales. The guidelines mention four examples of practices aiming to indirectly guarantee territorial protection which are prohibited when supplier and exclusive distributor agree:

that the exclusive distributor shall prevent customers in another territory from visiting their website or shall automatically refer them to the supplier’s or other distributors’ websites,
that the exclusive distributor shall terminate an online sale if the purchaser’s credit card data show that the purchaser is not from the exclusive distributor’s exclusive territory,
to limit the share of sales made by the exclusive distributor through the internet (but the contract may provide for minimum offline targets in absolute terms and for online sales to remain coherent compared to offline sales).
that the exclusive distributor shall pay a higher price for goods intended for sale on the internet than for goods intended for sale offline.

Manufacturers will have to decide whether they adopt a unique European gateway website or multiple local commercial offers, it being known that price differentiation is still possible per category of clients.

Indeed, the new Regulation does not oblige the e-retailers to harmonize their price policies, they must only allow EU consumers to access freely and easily to any version of their website. Likewise, this Regulation does not oblige e-retailers to ship products all over Europe, but just allow EU consumers to purchase goods from whichever website they want and to arrange the shipment themselves, if need be.

Finally on a more contractual level, it is not very clear yet how the new geoblocking rules could impact directly or indirectly the conflict of law rules applicable to consumer contracts, as per the Rome I regulation especially when the consumer will be allowed to handover the product purchased on a foreign website in the country of this website (which imply no specific delivery in the country where the consumer is established).

Therefore B2C general terms and conditions of websites would need to be reviewed and adapted on both marketing and legal sides.

Una vez convencidos de la utilidad de la mediación como método de solucionar conflictos entre franquiciador y franquiciado y tomada la decisión de incluir en los contratos una cláusula que la prevea, el último paso sería qué elementos debemos tener en cuenta a la hora de redactarla.

La negociación previa. Parece recomendable que ambas partes se concedan la posibilidad de intentar resolver el problema con una negociación formal previa. La mediación no excluye el intento previo llevado a cabo por los interesados o sus abogados, no obstante, parece recomendable que se prevea contractualmente un plazo adecuado a las circunstancias. La experiencia demuestra que alargar demasiado esta fase puede producir como resultado que el conflicto se vaya agravando y resulte más complicado incluso acercarse a la mediación.
La cláusula puede igualmente prever el lugar en el que la mediación se llevará a cabo. De nuevo en este punto las partes son libres. Es conveniente que éste sea preciso indicando la ciudad.
El idioma en el que va a desarrollarse la mediación es facultad de las partes. No habrá dificultad en mediaciones en las que ambas partes usen el mismo idioma, pero es muy conveniente en contratos con partes que los tengan diferentes, o que pertenezcan a regiones o países con diferentes lenguas cooficiales. La redacción o firma del contrato en un idioma concreto no presupone que ese haya de ser el idioma de la mediación. Es un elemento a tener muy en cuenta también a la hora de solicitar un mediador que pueda usar dicho idioma en la institución de mediación elegida.
El procedimiento puede decidirse igualmente por las partes. En particular, el número de sesiones, la duración máxima prevista, la participación de asesores, etc. Téngase en cuenta que la mayor o menor regulación permitirá evitar futuros conflictos al respecto, aunque también supondrá enmarcar más la libertad de las partes que, no obstante, permanecerán libres para modificar de común acuerdo lo pactado.
El plazo de duración de la mediación puede igualmente contemplarse. Ello permitiría, por ejemplo, evitar que la mediación se alargue únicamente con fines estratégicos meramente procesales o para recabar información de la otra parte antes de iniciar un procedimiento, etc. Los mediadores profesionales, no obstante, son capaces de identificar estas maniobras teniendo la facultad también de poner ellos mismos fin a la mediación en caso de constatarlas.
Elegir al mediador o a la institución de mediación es una elección importante. Las partes pueden ponerse de acuerdo sobre quién será su mediador, indicar en el contrato los elementos para elegirlo, o someterse directamente a una Institución de Mediación para que sea ésta quien lo designe conforme a sus propias reglas. Estas decisiones pueden ser alternativas (es decir, que las partes se pongan de acuerdo sobre el mediador y, en caso de falta de acuerdo, someterse a una institución que lo nombre), o pueden ser únicas. La designación de una Institución requiere que tenga la suficiente garantía de estabilidad (evitar designar instituciones de corta trayectoria o sin demasiada garantía de futuro), con un panel suficiente de mediadores en función de las características de la mediación (idioma, competencia, experiencia) y que permita la flexibilidad necesaria para su funcionamiento.
Por último, es conveniente que la cláusula incluya una vía alternativa en caso de que la mediación no llegue a buen puerto bien porque las partes no llegan a un acuerdo, bien porque se retiran de la mediación. Recordemos que la mediación no cierra las puertas a que el conflicto sea resuelto mediante el recurso a la jurisdicción ordinaria o al arbitraje. Y en materia de arbitraje especializado en contratos de distribución el IDArb (https://www.idiproject.com/content/idarb-idi-arbitration-project) es una excelente opción.