EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0542
Case C-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
Case C-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
Case C-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
OJ C 56, 16.2.2015, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 56/6 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
(Case C-542/14)
(2015/C 056/08)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Augstākā tiesa
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’
Defendant: Konkurences padome
Question referred
Must Article 101(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be established that an undertaking has participated in an agreement restricting competition, it must be shown that an officer of the undertaking has personally engaged in conduct or been aware of, or consented to, conduct by persons providing an external service to the undertaking and at the same time acting on behalf of other parties to a possible prohibited practice?