*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – ECJ, 4 June 2009, T-Mobile Netherlands and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, Case C-8/08 The Court has therefore followed the recommendations of Advocate General Julianne Kokott (presented in No 2-2009 of Concurrences) and adopted an extremely strict position of principle with regard to practices of information exchange between competitors, even isolated and a priori marginal. It will be recalled that, in the present case, four operators active on the Dutch mobile telephony market met on one occasion to discuss the reduction in the remuneration of subscription resellers and, on that occasion, referred to a certain
CASE COMMENT: ANTICOMPETITIVES PRACTICES - CONCERTED PRACTICES -MOBILE TELEPHONY MARKET - EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION - ANTICOMPETITIVE OBJECT AND EFFECT - PRESUMPTION OF CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THE PRACTICES AND MARKET BEHAVIOUR
Potentiality of anticompetitive object: The ECJ rules that a practice of exchange of information between competitors, even limited in scope, can have an anticompetitive object and that the causality presumption is a substantive rule, not a procedural rule (T-Mobile Netherlands)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.