Możliwość pociągnięcia do odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorcy za antykonkurencyjne zachowanie niezależnego usługodawcy. Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z 21 lipca 2016 r. w sprawie VM Remonts SIA, Ausma grupa SIA przeciwko Konkurences padome (oraz Konkurences padome przeciwko Pārtikas kompānija SIA)

• Authors: Michałek-Gervais Marta

Title variants

EN

Possibility to hold a company liable for the anticompetitive behaviour of an independent service provider. Case comment to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 July 2016 in case C-542/14 VM Remonts SIA, Ausma grupa SIA v. Konkurences padome (and Konkurences padome v. Pārtikas kompānija SIA)

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The case comment relates to the judgment the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 July 2016 in the case VM Remonts (C-542/14), delivered in response to a preliminary reference made by the Latvian Supreme Court. The question at stake referred to possibility to hold a company liable (in the light of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) for the anticompetitive behaviour of a third-party service provider. The Court of Justice did not follow the Opinion of the Advocate General Wathelet who suggested introducing rebuttable presumption of the company's liability in this respect. Instead, the Court of Justice held that a company should be only liable for the breach of competition law of a third-party service provider if one of three conditions are met (the service provider was acting under its direction or control; the company knew of the anticompetitive objectives of the service provider; or the company should have reasonably foreseen the anticompetitive behaviour of the service provider). The judgment is welcome as enforcing procedural justice and the companies' right to defence.

Keywords

EN

liability for breach of Article 101; liability for the anticompetitive behaviour of a third-party; independent service provider; right to defence; procedural justice

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 7
• Pages: 116-122

Dates

published

2016-11-30

online

2016-11-30

Contributors

author

Michałek-Gervais Marta

• Doktor nauk prawnych; pracownik kancelarii Clifford Chance

References

• Bailey, D. (2010). Presumptions in EU competition law. Common Market Law Review, 9(31).
• Botteman, Y. i in. (2012). "You Can’t Beat the Percentage” – The Parental Liability Presumption in EU Cartel Enforcement. European Antitrust Review, (3).
• Briggs, J.D. i Jordan, S. (2007). Presumed Guilty: Shareholder Liability for a Subsidiary’s Infringements of Article 81 EC Treaty. Business Law International, 1(8).
• Bronckers, M. i Vallery, A. (2011). No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Certain Dogmas of EU Competition Law. World Competition Law and Economic Review, 4(34).
• Burton, R. (2016). European Union: Advocate General Wathelet Clarifies Conditions Under Which Companies Can Be Held Liable For Conduct Of Independent Business Service Providers. Pozyskano z: http://www.mondaq.com/x/457382/Antitrust+Competition/Advocate+General+Wathelet+Clarifies+Conditions+Under+Which+Companies+Can+Be+Held+Liable+For+Conduct+Of+Independent+Business+Service+Providers (12.01.2016 r.).
• Cauffman, C. i Olaerts, M. (2011). Quimica: further developing the rules on parent company liability. European Competition Law Review, 9(32).
• Leupold, B. (2013). Effective enforcement of EU competition law gone too gar? European Competition Law Review, (34).
• Madge-Wyld, T. (2016). ECJ rules on independent service provider liability, Pozyskano z: http://globalcompetitionreview.com/news/article/41561/ecj-rules-independent-service-provider-liability/?utm_source=Law%20Business%20Research&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7356740_GCR%20Briefing&dm_i=1KSF,4DOHW,9OEIPW,G38D7,1 (22 lipca 2016 r.).
• Poga, E. (2016). ECJ spells out conditions for liability arising out of anti-competitive conduct of external service providers. Pozyskano z: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2ce414e8-a5b8-4e6f-9a9b-8942daaa8221 (15.08.2016 r.);
• Temple Lang, J. (2014). How Can the Problem of the Liability of a Parent Company for Price Fixing by a Wholly-owned Subsidiary Be Resolved? Fordham Internation Law Journal, 5(37).
• Vandenborre, I. i Goetz, T.C. (2012). Rebutting the Presumption of Parental Liability – A Probatio Diabolica? W: The International Comparative Legal Guide To: Cartels & Leniency 2012. A practical cross-border insight into cartels and leniency. London: Global Legal Group Ltd.

Identifiers

ISSN

2299-5749

DOI

10.7172/2299-5749.IKAR.7.5.7