Whether the General Court could properly settle a dispute before it without hearing in person the witnesses the Commission heard when resolving the case.
Whether a witness noted in a leniency application was an ‘incriminating witness’ and whether the General Court should hear them in person and give the parties the opportunity for a cross-examination of the witness in person as well.
Whether various acts, each of which had the identical object of distorting competition in the internal market, could constitute ‘a simple and continuous infringement’ irrespective of the fact that one or more of those acts could also, in themselves and taken in isolation, constitute an infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
At what point there could be considered to be economic unity between different companies, parents, and subsidiaries for the purposes of infringement of competition and when the presumption of economic unity between them should be applied.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
to access all content.