# C_2013114EN.01001901.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.

(Case C-68/12) (1)

1

(Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreement concluded between a number of banks - Competitor allegedly operating unlawfully on the market concerned - Effect - None)

2013/C 114/27

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

Appellant:

Respondent: Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Cartel — Agreement concluded between several banks with a view to cancelling agreements, and refraining from concluding new agreements, concerning current accounts with a competing undertaking established in another Member State — Effect on the classification as an unlawful agreement of the fact, not raised at the time when the agreement was entered into, that the competing undertaking was operating unlawfully on the market in question

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an undertaking that is adversely affected by an agreement whose object is the restriction of competition was allegedly operating illegally on the relevant market at the time when the agreement was concluded is of no relevance to the question whether the agreement constitutes an infringement of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an undertaking that is adversely affected by an agreement whose object is the restriction of competition was allegedly operating illegally on the relevant market at the time when the agreement was concluded is of no relevance to the question whether the agreement constitutes an infringement of that provision.

| 2. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is not necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of a representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative to the conduct of an employee of the undertaking who has participated in an anti-competitive meeting. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is not necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of a representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative to the conduct of an employee of the undertaking who has participated in an anti-competitive meeting.

| 3. | Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it can apply to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU only when the undertaking which is relying on Article 101(3) TFEU has proved that the four cumulative conditions laid down therein are met. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it can apply to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU only when the undertaking which is relying on Article 101(3) TFEU has proved that the four cumulative conditions laid down therein are met.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012

1

---