Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 6 May 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40135 – Forex (Three Way Banana Split) Rapporteur: Czechia (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 226/03
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, exchange transaction, foreign exchange market, sanction (EU), trade information, unlawful agreement








C_2020226EN.01000301.xml










9.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/3






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 6 May 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40135 – Forex (Three Way Banana Split)
Rapporteur: Czechia
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 226/03)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as spelled out in the draft decision?



4.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices were capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.



7.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.



8.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission with the methodology used to set the fines in application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).



9.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the determination of the basic amounts of the fines and the overlap corrections applied.



10.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines.



11.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating and no mitigating circumstances applicable in this case.



12.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines and partial immunities based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.



13.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice.



14.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.



15.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.




(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.