Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2019:204
Date: 2019-03-14
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Finland

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 December 2017 — Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy (Case C-724/17) Language of the case: Finnish Referring court Korkein oikeus Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: Vantaan kaupunki Respondents: Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy Questions referred Is the determination of which parties are liable for the compensation of damage caused by conduct contrary to Article 101 TFEU to be done by applying that article directly or on the basis of national provisions? If the parties liable are determined directly on the basis of Article 101 TFEU, are those parties which fall within the concept of undertaking mentioned in that article liable for compensation? When determining the parties liable for compensation, are the same principles to be applied as the Court of Justice has applied to determining the parties liable in cases concerning penalty payments, in accordance with which liability may be founded in particular on belonging to the same economic unit or on economic continuity? If the parties liable are determined on the basis of national provisions of a Member State, are national rules under which a company which, after acquiring the entire share capital of a company which took part in a cartel contrary to Article 101 TFEU, has dissolved the company in question and continued its activity is not liable for compensation for the damage caused by the anti-competitive conduct of the company in question, even though obtaining compensation form the dissolved company is impossible in practice or unreasonably difficult, contrary to the EU law requirement of effectiveness? Does the requirement of effectiveness preclude an interpretation of a Member State’s domestic law making it a condition of compensation for damage that a transformation of the kind described has been implemented unlawfully or artificially in order to avoid liability for compensation for damage under competition law or otherwise fraudulently, or at least that the company knew or ought to have known of the competition infringement when implementing the transformation? ____________