Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52016XX0419(01)

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 25 January 2016 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40028 — Alternators and starters — Rapporteur: Spain

OJ C 137, 19.4.2016, p. 5–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.4.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/5


Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 25 January 2016 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40028 — Alternators and starters

Rapporteur: Spain

(2016/C 137/04)

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 have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.

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 as regards the aggravating circumstances in this case.

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the mitigating circumstances in this case, reflecting the limited participation of Hitachi in the infringement.

14.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the application of a deterrence multiplier in this case.

15.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.

16.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice.

17.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

18.

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


Top