Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019CN0882

Case C-882/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2019 — Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.

OJ C 87, 16.3.2020, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.3.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/7


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2019 — Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.

(Case C-882/19)

(2020/C 87/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sumal, S.L.

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.

Questions referred

(A)

Does the doctrine of the single economic unit developed by the Court of Justice provide grounds for extending liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, or does the doctrine apply solely in order to extend liability from subsidiaries to the parent company?

(B)

In the context of intra-group relationships, should the concept of single economic unit be extended solely on the basis of issues of control, or can it also be extended on the basis of other criteria, including the possibility that the subsidiary may have benefited from the infringing acts?

(C)

If it is possible to extend liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, what would be required in order for it to be possible?

(D)

If the answers to the earlier questions support the extension of subsidiaries’ liability to cover acts of the parent company, would a provision of national law such as Article 71(2) of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), which provides only for liability incurred by the subsidiary to be extended to the parent company, and then only where the parent company exercises control over the subsidiary, be compatible with that Community doctrine?


Top