DaimlerChrysler AG v Commission of the European Communities (T-325/01)

Judgment of 15 Sept 2005

law://eu/cjeu/2001/t-325-01/para_177@2026-11-12

177Contrary to what the applicant contends (see paragraph 162 above), the statement of objections was not restricted to vertical competition. The Commission explained (in point 222 of the statement of objections) that the purpose of the action agreed upon between MBBel and the dealers in order to combat price slashing and exercise control over the granting of discounts by cuts in vehicle supplies where discounts exceeded three per cent was to restrict price competition in Belgium. MBBel was accordingly referred to not only as a party to an agreement to restrict discounts by cutting supplies but also, more generally, as an undertaking which took part in an agreement to limit discounts, exercise control over the conduct of dealers with regard to discounts and cut supplies where discounts in excess of three per cent were granted. Moreover, the applicant cannot describe the legal analysis of MBBel's participation in the agreement as new, since the Commission had indicated in the statement of objections that MBBel had already been party to a price agreement, primarily of a horizontal nature, prior to 20 April 1995, namely the action against ‘price slashing’. It is not necessary for the agreement to be binding under civil law for it to constitute an agreement for the purposes of Article 81(1) EC (Case C-277/87 Sandoz Prodotti Farmaceutici v Commission [1990] ECR I-45, paragraph 13) (see paragraph 160 above).

DaimlerChrysler AG v Commission of the European Communities (T-325/01)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections