232In so far as, in raising such an argument, the applicants seek to present evidence to the contrary in order to rebut the presumption that, by participating in the concerted action with the Barclays trader and by being active in the market, the Crédit agricole trader necessarily took account of the information exchanged with his competitor when determining his conduct on that market, in this case his trading strategy, by relying on the future manipulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 8 July 1999, Commission v Anic Partecipazioni, C‑49/92 P, EU:C:1999:356, paragraph 121, and of 8 July 1999, Hüls v Commission, C‑199/92 P, EU:C:1999:358, paragraph 162), it should be noted that the mere allegation that the trader did not hold a significant position at the date of an intended manipulation or that his bank held a position contrary to the direction of the cartel does not constitute sufficient proof to the contrary, since such evidence does not of itself preclude the presumption that the concerted action enabled the trader to eliminate uncertainties regarding his conduct on the market, so that normal competition might have been prevented, restricted or distorted (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 5 December 2013, Solvay Solexis v Commission, C‑449/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:802, paragraph 39).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.