- 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-128/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 26 February 2021 — Lietuvos notarų rūmai, M. S., S. Š., D. V., V. P., J. P., D. L.-B., D. P., R. O. I. v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0128
62021CN0128
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
10.5.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 182/41
(Case C-128/21)
(2021/C 182/56)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Lietuvos notarų rūmai, M. S., S. Š., D. V., V. P., J. P., D. L.-B., D. P., R. O. I.
Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
Questions referred
1.Is Article 101(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that notaries in the Republic of Lithuania, when carrying out activity related to the clarifications adopted by the Chamber of Notaries that are described in the present case, are undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU?
2.Is Article 101(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the clarifications adopted by the Lithuanian Chamber of Notaries that are described in the present case constitute a decision of an association within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU?
3.If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, do those clarifications have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the internal market for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU?
4.When ruling on a possible infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, are those clarifications, described in the present case, to be assessed in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 97 of the judgment in Wouters?
5.If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative, do the objectives referred to by the applicants, that is to say, making notarial practice uniform, filling a regulatory gap, protecting the interests of consumers, safeguarding the principles of equal treatment of consumers and proportionality, and protecting notaries against unjustified civil liability, constitute legitimate objectives when assessing those clarifications in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 97 of the judgment in Wouters?
6.If the answer to the fifth question is in the affirmative, are the restrictions imposed in those clarifications to be regarded as not going beyond what is necessary in order to ensure that legitimate objectives are attained?
7.Is Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that notaries who were members of the presidium may be regarded as having infringed that article and may be fined on the ground that they participated in the adoption of the clarifications described in the present case while working as notaries?
(1) Judgment of 19 February 2002, C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98.