- 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-435/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2018 — Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0435
62018CN0435
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 352/19
(Case C-435/18)
(2018/C 352/24)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H., Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Kone Aktiengesellschaft, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge Gesellschaft m.b.H.
Respondents: Land Oberösterreich, Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgenossenschaft ‘Lebensräume’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., EBS Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, WAG Wohnungsanlagen Gesellschaft m.b.H., WSG Gemeinnützige Wohn- und Siedlergemeinschaft reg. Gen.m.b.H., Neue Heimat Oberösterreich Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und SiedlungsgesmbH, BRW Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Baureform Wohnstätte’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Familie’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., VLW Vereinigte Linzer Wohnungsgenossenschaften Gemeinnützige GmbH, Gemeinnützige Steyrer Wohn- und Siedlungs Genossenschaft ‘Styria’ reg.Gen.m.b.H., Innviertler Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft reg.Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft der Stadt Steyr GmbH, Gemeinnützige Industrie-Wohnungsaktiengesellschaft, Gemeinnützige Siedlungsgesellschaft m.b.H. für den Bezirk Vöcklabruck, GEWOG Neues Heim Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft m.b.H.
Question referred
Are Article 85 TEC, Article 81 EC and Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to maintain the full effectiveness of those provisions and the practical effectiveness of the prohibition resulting from those provisions, it is necessary that compensation for losses may also be claimed from members of a cartel by persons who are not active as suppliers or customers on the relevant product and geographic market affected by a cartel, but who grant loans to buyers of the products offered on the market affected by the cartel under preferential terms as funding bodies within the scope of statutory provisions, and whose loss lies in the fact that the loan amount granted as a percentage of the product costs was higher than what it would have been without the cartel agreement, which means that they were unable profitably to invest those amounts?