# C_2012165EN.01000703.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic), lodged on 10 February 2012 — Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-68/12)

2012/C 165/13

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that it is of legal relevance that a competitor (trader) adversely affected by a cartel agreement between other competitors (traders) was operating on the relevant market illegally at the time when the cartel agreement was concluded? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that it is of legal relevance that a competitor (trader) adversely affected by a cartel agreement between other competitors (traders) was operating on the relevant market illegally at the time when the cartel agreement was concluded?

| 2. | For the purposes of interpreting Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC), is it of legal relevance that, at the time when the cartel agreement was concluded, the legality of that competitor’s (trader’s) conduct was not called in question by the competent supervisory bodies in the Slovak Republic? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of interpreting Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC), is it of legal relevance that, at the time when the cartel agreement was concluded, the legality of that competitor’s (trader’s) conduct was not called in question by the competent supervisory bodies in the Slovak Republic?

| 3. | Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of the representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative, who has (or may have) taken part in that agreement, to the conduct of one of the undertaking’s employees, where the undertaking has not distanced itself from the conduct of that employee and, at the same time, the agreement has even been implemented? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of the representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative, who has (or may have) taken part in that agreement, to the conduct of one of the undertaking’s employees, where the undertaking has not distanced itself from the conduct of that employee and, at the same time, the agreement has even been implemented?

| 4. | Is Article 101(3) TFEU (formerly Article 81(3) EC) to be interpreted as also applying to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) which by its nature has the effect of excluding from the market a specific individual competitor (trader) which has subsequently been found to have been carrying out foreign currency transactions on the cashless payment transactions market without holding the appropriate licence as required under national law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 101(3) TFEU (formerly Article 81(3) EC) to be interpreted as also applying to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) which by its nature has the effect of excluding from the market a specific individual competitor (trader) which has subsequently been found to have been carrying out foreign currency transactions on the cashless payment transactions market without holding the appropriate licence as required under national law?

---