Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : paragraphs 1, 15, 16, 18, 20, 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/80 : paragraphs 14, 23, 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -170/83 -N11 : paragraph 22
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N87 : paragraph 29
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -22/98 -N26 : paragraph 23
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N82 : paragraph 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N83 : paragraph 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N84 : paragraph 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -97/08 -N55 : paragraph 22
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/11 -N20 : paragraph 17
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/12 : paragraphs 14, 23, 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/13 -N75 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -293/13 -N76 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/13 -N18 : paragraph 17
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/13 -N35 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/13 -N36 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N28 : paragraph 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N29 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N30 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N31 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N32 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N33 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N34 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N35 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N36 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N37 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -345/14 -N12 : paragraph 17

Operative part

• Interprets : TFEU, Article 101 -P1

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : point 2
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 -P1 : point 68
  
• TFEU, Article 101 : points 2, 20, 40, 63
  
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : points 1, 15, 39, 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N64 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N174 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/77 -N18 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/80 : point 14
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/80 -N112 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/80 -N97 : points 44, 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/82 -N45 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -346/93 : point 17
  
• General Court - Judgment T -66/99 : points 34, 51, 56, 58
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -121/04 -N19 : point 51
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -121/04 -N20 : point 51
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -97/08 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -97/08 -N56 : point 46
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -407/08 -N49 : point 61
  
• General Court - Judgment T -418/10 : point 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/11 : point 17
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/11 -N20 : point 19
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -508/11 -N46 : point 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/12 : point 14
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/12 -N26 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/12 -N28 : point 45
  
• General Court - Judgment T -272/12 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/13 : point 19
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/14 -N31 : point 68
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 27/11/2014

Date of the Opinion

• 03/12/2015

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

21/07/2016

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 343 from 19.09.2016, p.4

Application: OJ C 56 from 16.02.2015, p.6

Name of the parties

VM Remonts and Others

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Jaunasse, Anouk: Une entreprise ne peut être tenue pour responsable d'une pratique concertée du fait des agissements d'un prestataire indépendant lui fournissant des services, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2016 nº 53 p.7 (FR)
2. Berg, Werner: Haftung für das Fehlverhalten eines Dienstleisters, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2016 p.739-740 (DE)
3. Talbot, Conor: The ECJ's decision in VM Remonts and the extension of liability for the anticompetitive conduct of service providers under article 101(1) TFEU, Commercial Law Practitioner 2016 p.233-235 (EN)
4. Elkins, Thomas: Don't be so presumptuous: The Court of Justice has ruled on a company’s liability for the anticompetitive behaviour of independent service providers, Competition Law Insight 2016 Vol. 15 Issue 10 p.10-11 (EN)
5. Idot, Laurence: Imputabilité des comportements d'un tiers, Europe 2016 Octobre Comm. nº 10 p.29-30 (FR)
6. Kuritár, Dávid: A szolgáltatást nyújtó vállalkozás versenyellenes magatartásáért való felelősség, Versenytükör 2016 2. szám p.119-124 (HU)
7. Hoffer, Raoul: Haftung für Kartellabsprachen eines Rechtsbeistands und dessen Subunternehmers, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2016 p.275-276 (DE)
8. Apostolakis, Ioannis: Antitrust liability in cases of indirect contacts between competitors: VM Remont, Common Market Law Review 2017 p.605-629 (EN)
9. Oechsler, Jürgen: Der mittelbare Stellvertreter als Teil der wirtschaftlichen Einheit im europäischen Kartellrecht, Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 2017 p.21-24 (DE)
10. Brömmelmeyer, Christoph: Haftung und Zurechnung im Europäischen Kartellrecht – Für wen ist ein Unternehmen verantwortlich?, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2017 p.174-182 (DE)
11. Bechtold, Rainer: Vorlage autonomen nationalen Kartellrechts zum EuGH. Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes vom 21.7.2016, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 2017 p.701-711 (DE)
12. Prieto, Catherine: XII. Ententes, abus de position dominante et concentrations - Cour de justice, 5e ch., 21 juillet 2016, SIA VM Remonts et SIA Ausma Grupa c/ Konkurences padome et Konkurences padome c/ SIA Partikas kompanija, aff. C-542/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:578, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2016. Décisions et commentaires (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2017, p. 462-467 (FR)
13. Botteman, Yves ; Keres, Camille: ICAP, AC-Treuhand, Eturas : les facilitateurs de cartels dans le viseur des autorités de concurrence, Journal de droit européen 2018 nº 247 p.82-86 (FR)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Augstākā tiesa - Latvia

Subject-matter

• Competition
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

quatrième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Jürimäe

Advocate General

Wathelet

Language(s) of the Case

• Latvian
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French