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)

*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