(3) it does not meet the conditions for obtaining the license, in whole or in part;
(4) he has violated a material condition of the license;
(5) he has violated a duty or prohibition imposed on him as a licensee under this Law;
(6) A liquidation order, a temporary liquidation order, a receivership order, a receivership order or a stay of proceedings order has been issued in respect of him under any law;
(7) He has been convicted of a criminal offense or a disciplinary offense, which, due to its nature, severity or circumstances, makes him unfit to engage in the provision of vehicle service or a profession in the automotive industry for which he was granted the license, or he has been indicted for such a criminal offense and a final judgment has not yet been issued in his case;
(8) (a) The Competition Commissioner determined that he is a party to a restrictive arrangement or that he is a monopoly holder who has abused his position in the market according to [...] the Economic Competition Law, 5748-1988, or the imposition of a financial sanction on it [...];
(b) [...];
(9) Regarding the professional management of a garage and brokerage in personal imports –
(a) He did not comply with the Director's instructions regarding professional training under section 14;
(b) There are circumstances listed in the list under section 13(b)(1) that indicate a concern of a conflict of interest;
(c) He violated the rules of professional ethics established under section 13(b)(2).
- These are therefore the main provisions relevant to our discussion. Equipped with their main points, we will turn to the description of the case at hand.
Background to the Appeal
- The appellant is a private company that has been engaged in the import and marketing of vehicles for over forty years. During 2022, it approached the Director with requests to extend direct importer licenses granted to it by virtue of the Licensing Law, in relation to various vehicles: scooters manufactured by Sanyang (hereinafter: Sunyang); scooters and motorcycles made by Yamaha (hereinafter: Yamaha); and motorcycles, freight tractors and off-road vehicles manufactured by Kawasaki (hereinafter: Kawasaki).
- Prior to making a decision on the applications, and taking into account the provisions of the Licensing Law and the Concentration Law, the Director contacted the Competition Authority (hereinafter: the Authority) in order to hold a consultation with the Director-General. In the Authority's opinion of September 1, 2022 with respect to the application for the renewal of a license for the import of Sun Yang products, it was stated that the Appellant's market shares in the years 2020-2022 in the field of importing gasoline scooters from all products are an average of 58%, and that there are significant barriers to entry and expansion into this market. Therefore, it was found that:
"[The appellant's] holding of two licenses for the import of gasoline scooters raises a horizontal concern of exerting unilateral market power over its customers in a variety of ways, such as raising the price of scooters, reducing the variety of models imported into Israel, and harming the quality of the service provided to the company's customers. Due to the fact that [the appellant] owns both Sun Yang and Yamaha, effective competition between the two brands in Israel is prevented [...]. The Authority's investigation revealed that there is an overlap between the prices of scooters [...]. In any case, Yamaha and Sun Yang scooters are interchangeable, even if they are not the closest replacements to each other."