# C_2021189EN.01000502.xml

| 17.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 January 2021 — ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU and ET v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.

(Case C-25/21)

(2021/C 189/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | If the applicant establishes that its exclusive supply contract under a brand name (on a commission basis or an executed sale basis with a discounted reference resale price) with REPSOL falls within the territorial and temporal scope examined by the national competition authority, must the contractual relationship be found to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia (Competition Court, Spain) of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or by the decision of the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (National Competition Commission, Spain) of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)
  regarding the burden of proof of the infringement being deemed to be satisfied pursuant to those decisions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If the applicant establishes that its exclusive supply contract under a brand name (on a commission basis or an executed sale basis with a discounted reference resale price) with REPSOL falls within the territorial and temporal scope examined by the national competition authority, must the contractual relationship be found to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia (Competition Court, Spain) of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or by the decision of the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (National Competition Commission, Spain) of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)
  regarding the burden of proof of the infringement being deemed to be satisfied pursuant to those decisions?

| 2. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, and it is established in the specific case that the contractual relationship is covered by the decision of the Competition Court of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or the decision of the National Competition Commission of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), must the necessary consequence be a declaration that the agreement is automatically void in accordance with Article 101(2) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, and it is established in the specific case that the contractual relationship is covered by the decision of the Competition Court of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or the decision of the National Competition Commission of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), must the necessary consequence be a declaration that the agreement is automatically void in accordance with Article 101(2) TFEU?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---