# C_2018148EN.01000601.xml

| 27.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 November 2017 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s eligibility rules

Rapporteur: The Netherlands

(2018/C 148/04)

| (1) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the relevant product and geographic markets. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the relevant product and geographic markets.

| (2) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision falls within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement since it does not meet the criteria laid down by the Court in the so-called ‘Meca-Medina’ test. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision falls within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement since it does not meet the criteria laid down by the Court in the so-called ‘Meca-Medina’ test.

| (3) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (4) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (5) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a restriction of competition by effect within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a restriction of competition by effect within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (6) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision cannot be exempted under Article 101(3) TFEU and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision cannot be exempted under Article 101(3) TFEU and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement.

| (7) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision has appreciable effect upon trade between Member States and between the EEA contracting parties. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision has appreciable effect upon trade between Member States and between the EEA contracting parties.

| (8) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the ISU’s Appeals Arbitration rules reinforce the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the ISU’s Appeals Arbitration rules reinforce the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision.

| (9) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the duration of the infringement.

| (10) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission draft decision as regards the addressee of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission draft decision as regards the addressee of the decision.

| (11) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should not be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should not be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision.

| (12) | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

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

Official Journal of the European Union

---