EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-25/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 January 2021 — ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU and ET v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0025

62021CN0025

January 15, 2021
With Google you find a lot.
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

17.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/5

(Case C-25/21)

(2021/C 189/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.

Questions referred

1.If the applicant establishes that its exclusive supply contract under a brand name (on a commission basis or an executed sale basis with a discounted reference resale price) with REPSOL falls within the territorial and temporal scope examined by the national competition authority, must the contractual relationship be found to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia (Competition Court, Spain) of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or by the decision of the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (National Competition Commission, Spain) of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 regarding the burden of proof of the infringement being deemed to be satisfied pursuant to those decisions?

2.If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, and it is established in the specific case that the contractual relationship is covered by the decision of the Competition Court of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or the decision of the National Competition Commission of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), must the necessary consequence be a declaration that the agreement is automatically void in accordance with Article 101(2) TFEU?

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia