# C_2019423EN.01002601.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 26 September 2019 — ZA and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos S.A.

(Case C-716/19)

(2019/C 423/32)

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. | Is it possible to conclude, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) that the facts as investigated and established in a decision given by a national competition authority of an EU Member State — where that authority acts in accordance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU within the remit granted to it pursuant to that regulation, the Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States, and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 3) of 27 April 2004 — which is subsequently upheld by a higher court and becomes final, have the probative force of full proof and have a constraining or prejudicial effect on the adjudication by another court in subsequent proceedings relating to the same facts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible to conclude, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) that the facts as investigated and established in a decision given by a national competition authority of an EU Member State — where that authority acts in accordance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU within the remit granted to it pursuant to that regulation, the Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States, and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 3) of 27 April 2004 — which is subsequently upheld by a higher court and becomes final, have the probative force of full proof and have a constraining or prejudicial effect on the adjudication by another court in subsequent proceedings relating to the same facts?

| 2. | If the national competition authority gives a decision on the existence of an infringement in relation to a network of agreements, must it be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the infringer, that all the agreements which make up that network are affected by the wording of the decision? In other words, do decisions given in relation to networks of agreements result in the reversal of the burden of proof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the national competition authority gives a decision on the existence of an infringement in relation to a network of agreements, must it be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the infringer, that all the agreements which make up that network are affected by the wording of the decision? In other words, do decisions given in relation to networks of agreements result in the reversal of the burden of proof?

---

(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.

---