This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52016XX0419(01)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 25 January 2016 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40028 — Alternators and starters — Rapporteur: Spain
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 25 January 2016 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40028 — Alternators and starters — Rapporteur: Spain
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 25 January 2016 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40028 — Alternators and starters — Rapporteur: Spain
OJ C 137, 19.4.2016, p. 5–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.4.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 137/5 |
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 25 January 2016 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case AT.40028 — Alternators and starters
Rapporteur: Spain
(2016/C 137/04)
|
1. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
|
2. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision. |
|
3. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
|
4. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
|
5. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU. |
|
6. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement. |
|
7. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees. |
|
8. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine 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 as regards the aggravating circumstances in this case. |
|
13. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the mitigating circumstances in this case, reflecting the limited participation of Hitachi in the infringement. |
|
14. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the application of a deterrence multiplier in this case. |
|
15. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
|
16. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2008 Settlement Notice. |
|
17. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
|
18. |
The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |