Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016

"Eturas" UAB and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Travel agencies using a common computerised booking system — Automatic restriction of the discount rates available for online bookings — System administrator’s message in relation to that restriction — Tacit agreement capable of being characterised as a concerted practice — Constituent elements of an agreement and of a concerted practice — Assessment of evidence and standard of proof — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of effectiveness — Presumption of innocence

Case C-74/14


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
26/02/2016 Eturas and Others
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2016:42
21/01/2016 Eturas and Others
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2016:42
21/01/2016 Eturas and Others
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2015:493
16/07/2015 Eturas and Others
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
25/04/2014 Eturas and Others
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

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

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Information not available


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


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: Cour de justice, 5e ch., 21 janvier 2016, Eturas UAB, aff. C-74-14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:42, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2016, Bruylant, Bruxelles. Décisions et commentaires 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

LT - Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos įstatymas (2012 m. kovo 22 d. redakcija, 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