a) power-driven hand tools 

b) garden tools.

Article 29Aof Law 3959/2011 andHCC Decision no 704/2020. Article 29A wasintroduced by virtue of article 29 L.4886/2022,Government Gazette Issue A’12/24.01.2022.

The Plenary of the Hellenic Competition Commissionunanimously decided, by open vote, as follows:

1. Finds that the companies 1) PANTELIS PAPADOPOULOS S.A, 2) STANLEY BLACK & DECKER (HELLAS) TRADE OF TOOLS AND MACHINERY LTD, 3) SPYRIDON PAPATHEODOSIOU S.A. and 4) ΜΑΚΙΤΑ HELLAS – TRADE OF POWER-DRIVEN TOOLS S.A.infringed articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU, as reflected in the grounds of the Decision, through their participation in prohibited vertical agreements by virtue of the practices outlined above in the context of the Settlement Procedure.
2. Imposeson PANTELIS PAPADOPOULOS S.A. a fine totaling EUR 710,964 for the above infringement of articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU committed over the period specified above.
3. Imposes onSTANLEY BLACK & DECKER (HELLAS) TRADE OF TOOLS AND MACHINERY LTD a fine totaling EUR 255,699 for the above infringement of articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU committed over the periodspecified above.
4. Imposes on SPYRIDON PAPATHEODOSIOU S.A.a fine totaling EUR 63,838 for the above infringement of articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU committed over the periodspecified above.
5. Imposes on ΜΑΚΙΤΑ HELLAS – TRADE OF POWER-DRIVEN TOOLS S.A. a fine totaling EUR342,806 for the above infringements of articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEUcommitted over the periods specified above (broken down into EUR 164,513 for the infringement consisting in the resale price maintenance andEUR 178,293 for the infringement consisting in the prohibition of parallel imports).

1) PANTELIS PAPADOPOULOS S.A. 

2) STANLEY BLACK & DECKER (HELLAS) TRADE OF TOOLS AND MACHINERY LTD 

3) SPYRIDON PAPATHEODOSIOU S.A.  

According to the grounds of the HCC Decision, all the above undertakings engaged inresale price maintenance practices, in the context of a vertical agreement with the relevant distribution network in the market for power-driven hand tools and garden tools, in breach of articles 1 of Law 3959/ 2011 and 101 of the TFEU.

Resale price maintenance as a hardcore restriction of competition by object is regarded, by its very nature,as capable of having an impact on the relevant market, as it reduces competition between resellers by eliminating intra-brand price competition, while acting as a disincentive to lower selling prices for the specific product. In view of the nature and content of the evidence in the case file, it can be concluded that the resale price maintenance for the products was implemented.

Oneofthecompaniesconcerned (ΜΑΚΙΤΑ HELLAS – TRADE OF POWER-DRIVEN TOOLS S.A.) engagedinthe indirect prohibition of parallel imports, in the context of a vertical agreement withthe retail network (resellers/dealers in the“traditional” market), in the market for power-driven hand tools andgarden tools, in breach of articles 1 of Law 3959/ 2011 and 101 of the TFEU.

According to settled Union and national case-law, agreements which have as their object the restriction of competition (restriction by object) clearly also include those related to the control, prevention and/or restriction of parallel trade, as they are by their very nature capable of leading to the partitioning of national markets, the obstruction of the economic interpenetration within the EU and,ultimately, to the fragmentation of the single internal market.Accordingly, it has been held that any measure aimed at partitioning national markets, by hindering parallel imports, infringes article 1 par. 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU, astheinfringement of these provisions does not depend on the success of any attempt to partition national markets.Moreover, where an agreement restricting competition by object falls within the prohibitions of par. 1 of articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 of the TFEU, its non-implementation in practice (in whole or in part) as well as non-compliance (in whole or in part) with what was agreed have no legal effect onfinding the infringement nor do they constitute a ground for exemption.

The above agreements can neither benefit from ablock exemptionunder Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2022/720, asthey constitute a hardcore restriction according to Article 4 of the Regulation, nor from an individual exemption according to the provisions of Articles 1 paragraph 3 of Law 3959/ 2011 and 101 par. 3 TFEU as the relevant conditions are not met.