This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012XX0218(02)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.605 — CRT Glass — Rapporteur: Netherlands
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.605 — CRT Glass — Rapporteur: Netherlands
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.605 — CRT Glass — Rapporteur: Netherlands
OJ C 48, 18.2.2012, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 48/15 |
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.605 — CRT Glass
Rapporteur: Netherlands
2012/C 48/05
1. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
2. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision. |
3. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
4. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
5. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice has been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and between other contracting parties to the EEA Agreement. |
6. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment as regards the duration of the infringement. |
7. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees. |
8. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
9. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
10. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
11. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines. |
12. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case. |
13. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the mitigating circumstances the Commission identifies for two of the addressees of the draft decision. |
14. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
15. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice. |
16. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
17. |
The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |