CELEX: 62014CA0542
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-542/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Purely internal situation — Application of analogous national rules — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concerted practice — Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider — Conditions)

19.9.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 343/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’
   (Case C-542/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Purely internal situation - Application of analogous national rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concerted practice - Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider - Conditions))
   (2016/C 343/05)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākā Tiesa
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, Konkurences padome
   
      Respondents: Konkurences padome, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may, in principle, be held liable for a concerted practice on account of the acts of an independent service provider supplying it with services only if one of the following conditions is met:
   
               —
            
            
               the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or
            
         
               —
            
            
               that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or
            
         
               —
            
            
               that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.12.2015.