Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy and Others (C-724/17)
Consideration of the questions referred
32

Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy and Others (C-724/17)

Judgment of 14 Mar 2019law://eu/cjeu/2017/c-724-17/para_32@2026-11-11

32It follows from the foregoing consideration that the entities which are required to compensate for the damage caused by a cartel or practice prohibited by Article 101 TFEU are the undertakings, within the meaning of that provision, which have participated in that cartel or that practice.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-724/17 · ECLI:EU:C:2019:204
Decided: 14 Mar 2019
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Korkein oikeus (Supreme Court, Finland)
Applicant: Vantaan kaupunki
Defendants: Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy; NCC Industry Oy; Asfaltmix Oy
Rapporteur: A. Arabadjiev
Advocate General: N. Wahl
Bench: 5 judges
A. Arabadjiev, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Levits, M. Berger, P.G. Xuereb
Language: Finnish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62017CJ0724

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

14 Mar 2019Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions
Cited by 13: Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L (C-882/19); Athenian Brewery SA and Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA (C-393/23); Lietuvos notarų rūmai and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (C-128/21); Towercast v Autorité de la concurrence and Ministère de l’Économie (C-449/21); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (C-152/19 P); Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others (C-435/18); Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain and Others v Prysmian Netherlands BV and Others (C-672/23)2 provisions; UBS Group AG and Others v European Commission (T-441/21); International Skating Union v European Commission (C-124/21 P)2 provisions; ZA and Others v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA (C-25/21); Stichting Cartel Compensation and Equilib Netherlands BV v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV and Others (C-819/19); BY and CZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-321/19); WESTbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (C-210/18)
Cites 9: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance); Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC) and Others (C-110/15); Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union Text with EEA relevance; Akzo Nobel NV and Others v European Commission (C-516/15 P); SNIA Spa in amministrazione straordinaria v European Commission (C-448/11); Kone AG and Others v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (C-557/12); Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente tabacchi italiani - ETI SpA and Others and Philip Morris Products SA and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others (C-280/06); European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp (C-434/13 P)