This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0074
Case C-74/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
Case C-74/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
Case C-74/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
OJ C 142, 12.5.2014, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 142/16 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
(Case C-74/14)
2014/C 142/22
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: UAB Eturas and Others
Respondent: Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (Lithuanian Competition Council)
Interested third parties: UAB Aviaeuropa, UAB Grand Voyage, UAB Kalnų upė, UAB Keliautojų klubas, UAB Smaragdas travel, UAB 700LT, UAB Aljus ir Ko, UAB Gustus vitae, UAB Tropikai, UAB Vipauta, UAB Vistus
Questions referred
|
1. |
Should Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which economic operators participate in a common computerised information system of the type described in this case and the Competition Council has proved that a system notice on the restriction of discounts and a technical restriction on discount rate entry were introduced into that system, it can be assumed that those economic operators were aware, or must have been aware, of the system notice introduced into the computerised information system and, by failing to oppose the application of such a discount restriction, expressed their tacit approval of the price discount restriction and for that reason may be held liable for engaging in concerted practices under Article 101(1) TFEU? |
|
2. |
If the first question is answered in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in the determination as to whether economic operators participating in a common computerised information system, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, have engaged in concerted practices within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU? |