Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:632
Date: 2000-11-16
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Appeals;Definition of undertaking
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Finland

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Appeals — Procedural requirements — Proof that authority bas been properly 
conferred on a lawyer by someone authorised for the purpose — Not applicable 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of justice, (Arts 38(5)(b) and 112(1)) 
2. Competition — Community rules — Infringement by an undertaking — Attribution 
to another undertaking having regard to the economic and legal links between them — 
Conditions 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) 
I - 10065 
SUMMARY — CASE C-294/98 P 
1. By virtue of Article 112( 1 ) of the Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of Justice, 
which refers solely to Article 38(2) and 
(3), Article 38(5)(b) of those rules, 
under which a legal person governed 
by private law must annex to his 
application 'proof that the authority 
granted to the applicant's lawyer has 
been properly conferred on him by 
someone authorised for the purpose', is 
not applicable to appeals. 
(see para. 15) 
2. The anti-competitive conduct of an 
undertaking can be attributed to 
another undertaking where it has not 
decided independently upon its own 
conduct on the market, but carried out, 
in all material respects, the instructions 
given to it by that other undertaking, 
having regard in particular to the 
economic and legal links between 
them. 
(see para. 27) 
I - 10066