do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 16 October 2023 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40636 - SNBB – Meeting by Video Conference – via Skype for Business – Rapporteur: Cyprus
Date: 2023-10-16
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, control of restrictive practices, pharmaceutical industry, price agreement, sanction (EU), vertical agreement








C_202406962EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6962


18.11.2024






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 16 October 2023 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40636 - SNBB
Meeting by Video Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’
         
Rapporteur: Cyprus
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6962)


1.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (12 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.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision for the infringement in which they were involved.



7.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.



8.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.



9.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and the 2008 Settlement Notice.



10.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.



11.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.




ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6962/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1042/23: Action brought on 16 October 2023 — BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding v Council
Date: 2023-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, principle of proportionality








C_202301311EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1311


11.12.2023





Action brought on 16 October 2023 — BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding v Council
(Case T-1042/23)
(C/2023/1311)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AAT Byelorussian Steel Works — management company of ‘Byelorussian Metallurgical Company’ holding (BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding) (Zhlobin, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/1592 of 3 August 2023 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1591 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, (2) including the applicant on the list set out in Annexes to Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 and on Annex I to Decision 2012/642/CFSP in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing a disproportionate measure, based on the deficient reasons provided in the contested acts, the Council adopted an unlawful measure and therefore, breached the applicant’s rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.






(1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/1592 of 3 August 2023 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 195I, p. 31).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1591 of 3 August 2023 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 195I, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1311/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)