Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52014XX0917(01)

    Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(1) Power Cables — Rapporteur: Denmark

    OJ C 319, 17.9.2014, p. 3–3 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    17.9.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 319/3


    Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(1) Power Cables

    Rapporteur: Denmark

    2014/C 319/03

    (1)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

    (2)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practices.

    (3)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement concerning high voltage underground and submarine power cables within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

    (4)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as its object the restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

    (5)

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

    (6)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Commission has territorial jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU.

    (7)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the duration of the infringement (1).

    (8)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision.

    (9)

    The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

    (10)

    The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.


    (1)  Following the clarifications provided by the Commission during the second Advisory Committee one Member State competition authority withdrew its earlier abstention regarding question 7.


    Top