Cartels

Decision no. 3542/2017 of 14 November 2017

In the present case, it is a violation of the provisions of Art. 5 letter a) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 and Art. 101 par. (1) letter (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by indirectly fixing the selling prices or other trading conditions for the products of the supplier B. Germany. The High Court dismissed the applicant A.'s appeal, which sought the annulment of the Competition Council's decision. Participation in the conclusion of an anticompetitive agreement may be expressed or tacit and, as far as the applicant is concerned, it has accepted the...

Read more

Decision no. 3038/2016 of 8 November 2016

This case concerns the turnover calculation method. The applicant, in contradiction with the defendant the Competition Council, requested, principally, the annulment of the Competition Council's Decision no. 39 of September 7, 2010 concerning the violation of Art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 and Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by the administrators of the mandatory private pension funds in Romania, finding that the deed is not of a competitive nature. The High Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. By this judgment, the first instance confirmed the qualification given by the...

Read more

Decision no. 2067/2016 of 22 June 2016

Undertaking A. signed contracts with its distributors, whereby they could not buy products from outside Romania, wherefore it was sanctioned by the Competition Council. The undertaking has appealed to the Competition Council, but the High Court dismissed the action. It is a violation of Article 5 of Law No 21/1996, clause 3.2.6, inserted in all 6 contracts signed by the appellant with its distributors, concerning the exclusive purchase of products from A., which did not pursue, as claimed by the supplier of products, to ensure the consumer protection to counterfeit products, but in fact has imposed an obligation on distributors...

Read more

Decision no. 787/2016 of 16 March 2016

The case concerns the violation of the provisions of art. 5 paragraph (1) letter c) Law no. 21/1996 republished and art. 101 TFU by concluding anticompetitive agreements with the purpose of sharing customers registered at the same time into two private pension funds in the initial adhesion procedure. The judgment of July 16, 2015 delivered by the CJEU in case C-172/14, having as its object the request for a preliminary ruling made under art.267 TFEU by the High Court of Cassation and Justice - the administrative and fiscal contentious section in the case concerning "B" Pensions - Company managing a...

Read more

Decision no. 3807/2015 of 26 November 2015

The case concerns an agreement with an anticompetitive object that is subject to the prohibition provided by Art. 5 paragraph (1) letter c) of Law no. 21/1996, respectively Art. Article 101 TFEU. The applicant A requested the court, in contradiction with the defendant the Competition Council, principally to annul Decision no. 39 of 07 September 2010 of the Competition Council, with the consequence of exonerating the applicant from the payment of the fine in the amount of RON 150,301; in the subsidiary, the reduction of the fine imposed below the basic level established by the Competition Council, finding that the...

Read more

Decision no. 3395/2015 of 30 October 2015

This case concerns the violation of the provisions of art. 5 paragraph (1) letter c) Law no. 21/1996 republished and art. 101 TFU by concluding anticompetitive agreements with the purpose of sharing customers registered at the same time into two private pension funds in the initial adhesion procedure. Article 5 (1) letter c) of the national competition law, similar to art. 101 paragraph (1) TFEU prohibits any express or tacit agreements between undertakings or associations of undertakings, any decisions taken by associations of undertakings and any concerted practice which have as object or effect the restriction, prevention or distortion of...

Read more

Decision no. 3387/2015 of 29 October 2015

In this case, the Competition Council sanctioned the violation of Art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 and Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by undertakings in the private pension fund management market (Pillar II) in Romania.  According to Art. 101 paragraph (1) TFEU and Art. 5 paragraph (1) of Law no. 21/1996, any type of concerted agreement / concerted practice which has as its "object or effect" the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the internal market are prohibited. The restriction by object refers to the fact that there...

Read more

Decision no. 2280/2015 of 3 June 2015

The case concerns the violation of the provisions of Art. 5 paragraph 1 letter f of Law no. 26/1996 and Art. 101 TFEU by establishing an anticompetitive agreement, which consisted in rigged bidding participation in in the public tender procedure. Complainant S.C. A. S.A. in contradiction with the defendant the Competition Council, requested the court to order the annulment of Decision no. 72/14 November 2012 issued by the defendant, a decision whereby the applicant was sanctioned with a fine of 11,384,973 lei representing 4% of the aggregate turnover for 2011 for violating the provisions of Art. 5 paragraph 1 letter...

Read more

Decision no. 1654/2015 of 22 April 2015

This case concerns violations of the provisions of Art. 5 paragraph (1) letter f) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 and Art. 101 paragraph (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Thus, the applicant SC A. SA, in opposition to the defendant B., requested the court to order the annulment of Decision no. 71 of November 14, 2012 issued by the defendant regarding the investigation commenced by the Order of the President B. no. 759/2011 and extended by the Order of the President B. nr. 836/2011, whereby B. found alleged violations by the applicant SC A....

Read more

Decision no. 1200/2015 of 17 March 2015

In this case, it is a violation of art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Law no. 21/1996 and art. 101 paragraph (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Regarding the invocation of the date of conclusion of the distribution contract (January 24, 2006), when - Romania not being a member of the European Union - the applicant appellant could not pursue the restriction of intra-Community competition or the division of markets within the Union, the High Court finds that the court of first instance correctly and legally dismissed this criticism, considering that only the violation of...

Read more
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Find jurisprudence

  • Category

  • Tag

  • Year