*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CFI, 9 July 2009, Automobiles Peugeot S.A. and Peugeot Nederland NV v. Commission, Case T-450/05 This long and detailed judgment is in line with the judgments of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in other cases involving practices restricting parallel exports of motor vehicles (Volkswagen and Daimler-Chrisler cases). In particular, it provides important clarifications on the one hand on the concept of an anti-competitive agreement in the particular case of relations between a manufacturer and its distributors and on the other hand on the concept of the anti-competitive object of a remuneration system and certain pressures exerted by
CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES - ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS - CAR DISTRIBUTION - RESTRICTIONS TO PARALLEL EXPORTS - CONCEPT OF ANTICOMPETITIVE OBJECT - CONCEPT OF ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENT
Anticompetitive object: The CFI confirms most of the European Commission’s decisions, provides detailed explanations on the concepts of anticompetitive agreement and anticompetitive object and slightly reduces the fine (Automobiles Peugeot)
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.