Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62008CN0008

Case C-8/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 January 2008 — 1. T-Mobile Netherlands, 2. KPN Mobile NV, 3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, 4. Orange Nederland NV, Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV

IO C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 11–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.4.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 January 2008 — 1. T-Mobile Netherlands, 2. KPN Mobile NV, 3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, 4. Orange Nederland NV, Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV

(Case C-8/08)

(2008/C 92/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:

1.

T-Mobile Netherlands BV

2.

KPN Mobile NV

3.

Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit

4.

Orange Nederland NV

Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV

Questions referred

1.

When applying Article 81(1) EC, which criteria must be applied when assessing whether a concerted practice has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market?

2.

Is Article 81 EC to be interpreted as meaning that, when a national court applies that provision, the evidence of a causal connection between concerted practice and market conduct must be adduced and appraised in accordance with the rules of national law, provided that those rules are not less favourable than the rules governing similar domestic actions and they do not make the exercise of the rights granted by Community law in practice impossible or excessively difficult?

3.

When applying the concept of concerted practices in Article 81 EC, is there always a presumption of a causal connection between concerted practice and market conduct even if the concerted practice is an isolated event and the undertaking which took part in the practice remains active on the market or only in those cases in which the concerted practice has taken place with a certain degree of regularity over a lengthy period?
Top