This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52014XX1014(01)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 31 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792 Steel Abrasives — Rapporteur: Romania
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 31 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792 Steel Abrasives — Rapporteur: Romania
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 31 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792 Steel Abrasives — Rapporteur: Romania
IO C 362, 14.10.2014, 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)
14.10.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 362/6 |
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 31 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792 Steel Abrasives
Rapporteur: Romania
2014/C 362/05
1. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices 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 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. |
3. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
4. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and EEA. |
5. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement for each addressee. |
6. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the addressees of the decision. |
7. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
8. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
9. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines. |
10. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case. |
11. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions based on the mitigating circumstances. |
12. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the adaptation of the fines based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. |
13. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
14. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice. |
15. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the inability to pay request. |
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. |