In a recently published decision, which was adopted on 4 August 2011, the European Commission has rejected a complaint submitted by BRV Pty Ltd ("BRV") which alleged that a group of undertakings – in particular, numerous vehicle engine manufacturers – had violated Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by virtue of a decision to ban the use of rotary valves in Formula One and MotoGP engines.
Between 1993 and 2008, BRV had been contracted to collaborate with a number of vehicle engine manufacturers for the purpose of equipping Formula One and MotoGP engines with rotary valve technology. Following serious accidents during Formula One championships, the FIA (the world governing body for motor sports) issued a declaration in June 2004 amending its engine safety regulations, thereby effectively prohibiting the future use of rotary valve technology in Formula One motorcar engines. Similarly in 2008, the FIM (the world governing body for world motorcycling sport) modified its MotoGP regulations, requiring the exclusive use of one particular type of engine, thereby banning de facto the use of rotary valves in motorcycle racing engines.
In a complaint submitted to the Commission in September 2009, BRV claimed that both the FIA and the FIM had co-operated with a number of vehicle engine manufacturers – including BMW, Ford, Fiat, Honda, Renault, Toyota and Dorna – in an anti-competitive manner by bringing about the ban on rotary valve technology, thereby infringing Article 101 TFEU. In addition, the complainant alleged that the undertakings were guilty under Article 102 TFEU of abusing a collective dominant position.
In its rejection decision, adopted in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, the Commission began by finding that the decision to ban rotary valve technology could not conceivably have a significant impact on the functioning of the internal market, since Formula One and MotoGP are not the only available platforms for the purposes of marketing car and motorcycle engine technology. The Commission went on to point out the limited likelihood of establishing an infringement under Article 101 TFEU, as the regulations adopted by FIA and FIM, which admittedly excluded a certain technology in favour of other types, appeared prima facie to be justified by legitimate sporting objectives such as improving safety, widening participation (i.e., by reducing costs) and improving spectator experience. The regulations thus fully satisfied the criteria set down in the Court of Justice's Meca-Medina ruling concerning the compatibility of sporting regulations with the EU competition rules.
Regarding alleged breaches of Article 102 TFEU, the Commission noted that the complainant had failed to produce adequate evidence (i) that either Formula One engines or MotoGP engines constituted distinct product markets, (ii) that the vehicle manufacturers in question held a collective dominant position in their respective markets or (iii) that the manufacturers had collectively exerted pressure on the FIA and FIM.
The Commission thus rejected the complaint, holding that, given the lack of Union interest, further investigation into the alleged infringements would be disproportionate.
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.
