Results found: 1

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: liability for the anticompetitive behaviour of a third-party

Sort By:

Limit search:

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)

100%

Michałek-Gervais M.

internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny

2016

vol. 5

issue 7

116-122

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.

Refine search results

1 internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny

1 Michałek-Gervais M.

1 2016

Search results