303It is appropriate to recall in this connection that the Court of Justice held in its judgment on appeal in Commission v Tetra Laval, paragraph 60 above (paragraphs 74 to 78) that the Court of First Instance, in its judgment in Tetra Laval v Commission, paragraph 58 above, had been right to hold that the likelihood of the adoption of certain conduct must be examined comprehensively, that is to say, taking account both of the incentives to adopt such conduct and the factors liable to reduce, or even eliminate, those incentives, including the possibility that the conduct is unlawful. However, the Court of Justice also held that it would run counter to the preventive purpose of Regulation No 4064/89 to require the Commission to examine, for each proposed merger, the extent to which the incentives to adopt anticompetitive conduct would be reduced, or even eliminated, as a result of the unlawfulness of the conduct in question, the likelihood of its detection and the action taken by the competent authorities (see paragraph 72 et seq. above).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.