- Tytuł:
-
Możliwość pociągnięcia do odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorcy za antykonkurencyjne zachowanie niezależnego usługodawcy. Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z 21 lipca 2016 r. w sprawie VM Remonts SIA, Ausma grupa SIA przeciwko Konkurences padome (oraz Konkurences padome przeciwko Pārtikas kompānija SIA)
Possibility to hold a company liable for the anticompetitive behaviour of an independent service provider. Case comment to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 July 2016 in case C-542/14 VM Remonts SIA, Ausma grupa SIA v. Konkurences padome (and Konkurences padome v. Pārtikas kompānija SIA) - Autorzy:
- Michałek-Gervais, Marta
- Powiązania:
- https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/507996.pdf
- Data publikacji:
- 2016-11-30
- Wydawca:
- Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
- Tematy:
-
liability for breach of Article 101
liability for the anticompetitive behaviour of a third-party
independent service provider
right to defence
procedural justice - Opis:
- The case comment relates to the judgment the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 July 2016 in the case VM Remonts (C-542/14), delivered in response to a preliminary reference made by the Latvian Supreme Court. The question at stake referred to possibility to hold a company liable (in the light of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) for the anticompetitive behaviour of a third-party service provider. The Court of Justice did not follow the Opinion of the Advocate General Wathelet who suggested introducing rebuttable presumption of the company's liability in this respect. Instead, the Court of Justice held that a company should be only liable for the breach of competition law of a third-party service provider if one of three conditions are met (the service provider was acting under its direction or control; the company knew of the anticompetitive objectives of the service provider; or the company should have reasonably foreseen the anticompetitive behaviour of the service provider). The judgment is welcome as enforcing procedural justice and the companies' right to defence.
- Źródło:
-
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny; 2016, 5, 7; 116-122
2299-5749 - Pojawia się w:
- internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
- Dostawca treści:
- Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł