CELEX: 62021CN0385
Language: en
Date: 2021-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-385/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 22 June 2021 — Zenith Media Communications SRL v Consiliul Concurenței

27.9.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 391/8
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 22 June 2021 — Zenith Media Communications SRL v Consiliul Concurenței
      (Case C-385/21)
      (2021/C 391/12)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant and appellant: Zenith Media Communications SRL
      
         Defendant and respondent: Consiliul Concurenței
      
         Questions referred
      
      Are Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  imposing an obligation upon a Member State’s competition authority to interpret national law governing the fixing of fines in accordance with the principle of proportionality, in the sense that it is necessary to verify whether total turnover, as stated in the profit and loss account of the balance sheet for the previous financial year, faithfully reflects the economic and financial operations in accordance with the economic reality;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  precluding, in the light of the principle of proportionality, the practice of a Member State’s competition authority of imposing a fine in relation to the turnover stated in the profit and loss account of the balance sheet for the previous financial year, which includes the sums re-invoiced to final customers in connection with services for the purchase of media space by an intermediary, rather than just the commissions on the work of the intermediary;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  precluding the interpretation of a rule of national law as meaning that responsibility for the correct recording in the accounts and the faithful presentation of the economic and financial operations in accordance with the economic reality lies with the undertaking that is fined and that a Member State’s competition authority is bound by the manner in which the undertaking that is fined fulfils that obligation?