Tacit Agreement Competition Law

Therefore, the principle of effectiveness requires that an infringement of EU competition law can be demonstrated not only by direct evidence, but also by evidence, provided that it is objective and consistent. In so far as the referring court doubts the possibility of finding, in the light of the presumption of innocence, that the travel agencies had or should have been aware of the message at issue in the main proceedings, it should be noted that the presumption of innocence is a general principle of EU law – now enshrined in Article 48, paragraph 1, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment in E.ON Energie v Commission), C-89/11 P, EU:C:2012:738, See judgments in VEBIC, C-439/08, EU:C:2010:739, paragraph 63, and N., C-604/12, EU:C:2014:302, paragraph 41). Should be Article 101(1) of the EC Treaty. 1 TFEU that, in a situation where economic operators participate in a common computerised information system of the type described in the present case and the Competition Council has demonstrated that a communication from the system concerning the limitation of discounts and a technical limitation of entry at the discount rate has been included in that system, it may be assumed that those economic operators are informed of the operator`s situation in the it industry By not objecting. to the application of such a restriction on discounts, they expressed their tacit consent to the limitation of prices and, consequently, to concerted practices under Article 101(1) of the EC Treaty. 1 Can TFEU be held liable? The Competition Council submits that the E-TURAS reservation system served as a coordinating instrument for the applicants in the main proceedings and that it eliminated the need to meet. In that regard, it submits that, first, the conditions of use of that system enabled those applicants to reach an `agreement of intent` on a rebate ceiling without it being necessary to make direct contacts and, on the other hand, that the failure to oppose the rebate ceiling amounts to tacit consent to them. The E-TURAS system operated under uniform conditions and is easily recognisable on the websites of the travel agencies at issue in the main proceedings, which publish information on the applicable discounts. Those travel agencies did not object to the discount ceiling imposed and therefore made it clear to each other that they applied limited discounts, thus eliminating any uncertainty as to the discount rates. In the view of the Competition Council, the applicants in the main proceedings were required to exercise caution and responsibility and could not ignore or neglect statements relating to the instruments used in their activities.

In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the existence of a concerted approach or agreement must, in most cases, be inferred from a series of hazards and indications which, in the absence of another plausible explanation, may constitute evidence of an infringement of the competition rules (see Judgment in Case C-634/13 P Total Marketing Services v Commission, UE:C:2015:614, r. 26 and the case-law referred to therein. . . .