Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0542

    Case C-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014  — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome

    IO C 56, 16.2.2015, 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)

    16.2.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 56/6


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome

    (Case C-542/14)

    (2015/C 056/08)

    Language of the case: Latvian

    Referring court

    Augstākā tiesa

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

    Defendant: Konkurences padome

    Question referred

    Must Article 101(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be established that an undertaking has participated in an agreement restricting competition, it must be shown that an officer of the undertaking has personally engaged in conduct or been aware of, or consented to, conduct by persons providing an external service to the undertaking and at the same time acting on behalf of other parties to a possible prohibited practice?


    Top