This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52017XX0915(01)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 January 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives — Rapporteur: The Netherlands
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 January 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives — Rapporteur: The Netherlands
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 January 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives — Rapporteur: The Netherlands
OJ C 305, 15.9.2017, p. 7–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.9.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 305/7 |
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 January 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives
Rapporteur: The Netherlands
(2017/C 305/06)
|
1. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between relevant undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA. |
|
2. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision. |
|
3. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in one or more of the respective seven separate single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA. |
|
4. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA. |
|
5. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and the contracting parties to the EEA Agreement. |
|
6. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringements. |
|
7. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees. |
|
8. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
|
9. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
|
10. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
|
11. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines. |
|
12. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case. |
|
13. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the application of the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
|
14. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
|
15. |
The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |