Similarly, in the Court of First Instance's view, the service bonuses operated by Michelin, which supposedly rewarded after-sales services provided by dealers, had an abusive effect: they were unfair since they were based on subjective criteria, were loyalty-inducing and were in the nature of a tied sale in that they encouraged dealers to give priority to Michelin when having tyres retreaded.
De même, estime le Tribunal, le système appliqué par Michelin de la prime de service censée rémunérer les services après vente rendus par les revendeurs avait un effet abusif: il était inéquitable( car reposant sur des critères d'appréciation subjectifs), fidélisant et avait un effet de vente liée dans la mesure où les revendeurs étaient incités à faire rechaper en priorité les pneus par Michelin.
