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

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 48 -P1 : paragraph 38
• TFEU, Article 101 : paragraphs 1, 28, 30, 35
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : paragraphs 25, 26, 29, 33, 42, 50
• TFEU, Article 102 : paragraph 35
• Regulation 1/2003 -A02 : paragraphs 4, 29, 30
• Regulation 1/2003 -C5 : paragraphs 3, 31
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N32 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N33 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N51 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N52 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N53 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -439/08 -N63 : paragraphs 32, 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/09 -N24 : paragraph 35
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -89/11 -N72 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -604/12 -N41 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/13 -N126 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -634/13 -N23 : paragraph 46
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -634/13 -N24 : paragraph 46
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -634/13 -N26 : paragraph 36
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/14 -N31 : paragraph 28
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -310/14 -N28 : paragraph 32

Operative part

• Interprets : TFEU, Article 101 -P1

Opinion

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 48 -P1 : point 95
  
• TFEU, Article 101 : point 100
  
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : points 1, 25, 29, 37 - 43, 57, 77, 96, 100, 103
  
• TFEU, Article 102 : points 73, 100
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/64 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N68 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N174 : point 32
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N26 : point 31
  
• General Court - Opinion T -1/89 : points 1, 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N115 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N117 : point 32
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N118 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N121 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N131 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 -N96 : point 83
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/92 -N149 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/92 -N150 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/92 -N161 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/92 -N162 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -235/92 -N175 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -235/92 -N176 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/95 -N58 : point 96
  
• General Court - Judgment T -25/95 -N1849 : point 45
  
• General Court - Judgment T -41/96 -N173 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N81 : point 83
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N82 : points 49, 84
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N84 : point 84
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 -N87 : point 98
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -2/01 -N141 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -2/01 -N62 : point 96
  
• General Court - Judgment T -53/03 -N153 : point 45
  
• General Court - Judgment T -53/03 -N182 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -8/08 : points 97, 99
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -97/08 : point 99
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N29 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N50 : points 57, 100
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N51 : points 57, 100
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N52 : points 57, 100
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 -N59 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -97/08 -N60 : point 98
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -89/11 -N72 : point 96
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -89/11 -N73 : point 96
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -89/11 -N75 : point 98
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/13 -N127 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -194/14 : point 42
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 10/02/2014

Date of the Opinion

• 16/07/2015

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

21/01/2016

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 98 from 14.03.2016, p.3

Application: OJ C 142 from 12.05.2014, p.16

Name of the parties

Eturas and Others

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Kreijer, P.J.: De o.a.f.g. via een simpele e-mail: HvJEU houdt vast aan Anic-vermoeden in Eturas, Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk 2016 p.19-23 (NL)
2. Bogdanova, Anna ; Andrijevska, Elīna: VAI CEĻOJUMU AĢENTŪRĀM, KAS IZMANTO KOPĪGU REZERVĒŠANAS SISTĒMU, BŪTU JĀZINA SAŅEMTĀ ELEKTRONISKĀ PASTA SATURS, Jurista vārds 2016 nº 26 p.30-31 (LV)
3. Rusu, Catalin S.: Eturas: Of Concerted Practices, Tacit Approval, and the Presumption of Innocence, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2016 Vol. 7 nº 6 p.396-398 (EN)
4. Idot, Laurence: Autonomie procédurale et appéciation des preuves, Europe 2016 Mars Comm. nº 3 p.55-56 (FR)
5. Knibbeler, Winfred: Eturas: ontvangst ongevraagde online informatie kan leiden tot onderling afgestemd feitelijk gedrag, Markt & Mededinging 2016 p.147-152 (NL)
6. Drijber, B.J.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2016 Afl.47 p.6121-6123 (NL)
7. Gerbrandy, A. ; Binder, T.: Afstemming in de eenentwintigste eeuw: de rol van bewijsvermoedens voor onderling afgestemde feitelijke gedraging door deelname aan online platforms, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2016 p.277-283 (NL)
8. Köcse, Ildikó: Hogyan válik egy vállalkozás egy rendszerüzenet címzettjéből kartelltaggá?, Versenytükör 2016 1. szám p.61-69 (HU)
9. Kohutek, Konrad: Czy wysłanie e-maila o treści antykonkurencyjnej stanowi praktykę uzgodnioną w rozumieniu art. 101 ust. 1 TFUE?, Glosa : Przegląd Prawa Gospodarczego 2017 Vol.3 p.96-103 (PL)
10. Prieto, Catherine: XII. Ententes, abus de position dominante et concentrations - Cour de justice, 5e ch., 21 janvier 2016, Eturas UAB, aff. C-74-14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:42, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2016. Décisions et commentaires (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2017, p. 435-444 (FR)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Cour suprême administrative de Lituanie) - Lithuania

Subject-matter

• Competition
  
• - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Konkurencijos įstatymas, Valstybės žinios, 2012, Nr.42 2041) art. 3, point 15, et art. 5

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

cinquième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Juhász

Advocate General

Szpunar

Language(s) of the Case

• Lithuanian
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• English