# C_2018135EN.01000301.xml

| 17.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 20 November 2017 regarding a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.39881 — Occupant Safety Systems supplied to Japanese Car Manufacturers

Rapporteur: Luxembourg

(2018/C 135/03)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes four separate agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes four separate agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope for each of the four agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope for each of the four agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in the four single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as spelled out in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in the four single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as spelled out in the draft decision.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the four agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the four agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the four agreements and/or concerted practices were capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the four agreements and/or concerted practices were capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the four infringements. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the four infringements.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees in respect of each of the four infringements. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees in respect of each of the four infringements.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the role of Marutaka as facilitator of one of the four infringements. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the role of Marutaka as facilitator of one of the four infringements.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision for each of the four infringements in which they were involved. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision for each of the four infringements in which they were involved.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).

1

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines.

| 13. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating and no mitigating circumstances applicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating and no mitigating circumstances applicable in this case.

| 14. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

14.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 15. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice.

| 16. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 17. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

1

---