Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/3

(Case C-74/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Concerted practice - Travel agencies using a common computerised booking system - Automatic restriction of the discount rates available for online bookings - System administrator’s message in relation to that restriction - Tacit agreement capable of being characterised as a concerted practice - Constituent elements of an agreement and of a concerted practice - Assessment of evidence and standard of proof - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Presumption of innocence))

(2016/C 098/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ‘Eturas’ UAB, ‘AAA Wrislit’ UAB, ‘Baltic Clipper’ UAB, ‘Baltic Tours Vilnius’ UAB, ‘Daigera’ UAB, ‘Ferona’ UAB, ‘Freshtravel’ UAB, ‘Guliverio kelionės’ UAB, ‘Kelionių akademija’ UAB, ‘Kelionių gurmanai’ UAB, ‘Kelionių laikas’ UAB, ‘Litamicus’ UAB, ‘Megaturas’ UAB, ‘Neoturas’ UAB, ‘TopTravel’ UAB, ‘Travelonline Baltics’ UAB, ‘Vestekspress’ UAB, ‘Visveta’ UAB, ‘Zigzag Travel’ UAB, ‘ZIP Travel’ UAB

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

Intervening parties: ‘Aviaeuropa’ UAB, ‘Grand Voyage’ UAB, ‘Kalnų upė’ UAB, ‘Keliautojų klubas’ UAB, ‘Smaragdas travel’ UAB, ‘700LT’ UAB, ‘Aljus ir Ko’ UAB, ‘Gustus vitae’ UAB, ‘Tropikai’ UAB, ‘Vipauta’ UAB, ‘Vistus’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where the administrator of an information system, intended to enable travel agencies to sell travel packages on their websites using a uniform booking method, sends to those economic operators, via a personal electronic mailbox, a message informing them that the discounts on products sold through that system will henceforth be capped and, following the dissemination of that message, the system in question undergoes the technical modifications necessary to implement that measure, those economic operators may — if they were aware of that message — be presumed to have participated in a concerted practice within the meaning of that provision, unless they publicly distanced themselves from that practice, reported it to the administrative authorities or adduce other evidence to rebut that presumption, such as evidence of the systematic application of a discount exceeding the cap in question.

It is for the referring court to examine — on the basis of the national rules governing the assessment of evidence and the standard of proof — whether, in view of all the circumstances before it, the dispatch of a message, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute sufficient evidence to establish that the addressees of that message were aware of its content. The presumption of innocence precludes the referring court from considering that the mere dispatch of that message constitutes sufficient evidence to establish that its addressees ought to have been aware of its content.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.