Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2147
Date: 2014-09-04
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 4 September 2014 1. Competition — EU rules — Obligations of the Member States — Prohibition on introducing or maintaining in force measures undermining the effectiveness of those rules (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 101 TFEU) 2. Competition — EU rules — Obligations of the Member States — National legislation requiring hauliers to comply with tariffs which cannot be lower than minimum operating costs — Setting of tariffs by a body composed mainly of representatives of the economic operators concerned — Not permissible (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 101 TFEU) 3. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Decisions of associations of undertakings — Concept of an association of undertakings — Committee representing operators in the haulage market entrusted with setting minimum tariffs — Absence of precise public-interest criteria, of review and of the power to adopt decisions by the State — Included (Art. 101(1) TFEU) 4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Effect on trade between Member States — Criteria — Agreement, decision or concerted practice extending over the whole of the territory of a Member State (Art. 101(1) TFEU) 5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — National legislation requiring hauliers to comply with tariffs which cannot be lower than minimum operating costs — Setting of tariffs by a body composed mainly of representatives of the economic operators concerned — Justification — Absence (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 101(1) TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 28, 29) 2. Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the price of haulage services for hire and reward may not be lower than minimum operating costs, which are fixed by a body composed mainly of representatives of the economic operators concerned. Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, is infringed where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 101 TFEU or reinforces their effects, or where it divests its own rules of the character of legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere. In those circumstances, first, the fixing of minimum operating costs by that body, which are made mandatory by national legislation, by preventing undertakings from setting tariffs lower than those costs, amounts to the horizontal fixing of mandatory minimum tariffs. Second, an agreement, decision or concerted practice extending over the whole of the territory of a Member State has, by its very nature, the effect of reinforcing the partitioning of markets on a national basis, thereby holding up the economic interpenetration which the TFEU is designed to bring about. (see paras 28, 29, 43, 44, 58, operative part) 3. A committee composed principally of representatives of professional associations of carriers and customers must be regarded as an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU when it adopts, by a majority of its members, decisions fixing minimum tariffs applicable to the carriage of goods by road, since the national legislation establishing that committee and making those decisions mandatory lays down neither sufficiently precise public-interest criteria to ensure that those representatives in fact operate in compliance with the general public interest that that legislation seeks to achieve, nor actual review and a power to adopt decisions in the last resort by the State. That is the case a fortiori where the national legislation at issue leaves a very large margin of discretion and independence to the members of that committee in the determination of the minimum operating costs in the interest of the professional organisations which appointed them and does not contain either procedural arrangements or substantive requirements capable of ensuring that that, when establishing minimum operating costs, that committee conducts itself like an arm of the State working in the public interest. (see paras 32, 33, 37, 38, 41) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 42-45) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 46-57)