CELEX: 62010CN0017
Language: en
Date: 2010-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-17/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 January 2010 — Toshiba Corporation, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D SA, Areva T&D AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Alstom, Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd, Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Siemens AG Österreich, VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens AG, Hitachi Ltd, Hitachi Europe Ltd, Japan AE Power Systems Corp., Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže

17.4.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 100/14
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 January 2010 — Toshiba Corporation, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D SA, Areva T&D AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Alstom, Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd, Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Siemens AG Österreich, VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens AG, Hitachi Ltd, Hitachi Europe Ltd, Japan AE Power Systems Corp., Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže
   (Case C-17/10)
   2010/C 100/23
   Language of the case: Czech
   
      Referring court
   
   Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Toshiba Corporation, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D SA, Areva T&D AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Alstom, Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd, Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Siemens AG Österreich, VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens AG, Hitachi Ltd, Hitachi Europe Ltd, Japan AE Power Systems Corp., Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA
   
      Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (The Czech Authority for the Protection of Competition)
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty be interpreted to mean that that legislation must be applied (in proceedings brought after 1.5.2004) to the whole period of operation of the cartel, which commenced in the Czech Republic before that state’s entry to the European Union (that is, before 1.5.2004) and continued and ended after the Czech Republic’s entry to the European Union ?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Must Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof and recital 17 in the preamble thereto, with point 51 of the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, (2) with the principle ne bis in idem under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (3) and with the general principles of European law be interpreted as meaning that if the Commission brings proceedings after 1.5.2004 for infringement of Article 81 EC and makes a decision in that case:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           the Competition Authorities of the Member States are automatically relieved of their competence to deal with that conduct from that time onwards?
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           the Competition Authorities of the Member States are relieved of their competence to apply to that conduct the provisions of domestic law containing parallel legislation to Article 81 EC (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 2004 C 101, p. 43.
   
      (3)  OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1.