- 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-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0542
62014CN0542
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
16.2.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 56/6
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
(Case C-542/14)
(2015/C 056/08)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’
Defendant: Konkurences padome
Question referred
Must Article 101(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be established that an undertaking has participated in an agreement restricting competition, it must be shown that an officer of the undertaking has personally engaged in conduct or been aware of, or consented to, conduct by persons providing an external service to the undertaking and at the same time acting on behalf of other parties to a possible prohibited practice?