- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-172/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market — Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE — Effect on trade between Member States)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0172
62014CA0172
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 302/8
(Case C-172/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market - Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE - Effect on trade between Member States))
(2015/C 302/09)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA
Defendant: Consiliul Concurenței
Operative part of the judgment
Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between the private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market.
* Language of the case: Romanian.
(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.