District chimney sweep
GWB Section 1, Section 21 Paragraph 2 No. 1, Section 81 Paragraph 3 No. 2
a) The provisions of Section 21, Paragraph 2, No. 1, Section 1 of the GWB, which fill out the fine in Section 81 (3) No. 2 GWB, include an offer made to the competitor using pressure or attracting means for one's own competitive behavior against payment to renounce. In this respect, the intention of the user is sufficient to induce the addressee to make a payment in return for a waiver of competition. The regulations do not require further that the user of the pressure or attractant intends a certain behavior of the addressee in the market.
b) According to Section 81 (3) No. 2 in conjunction with Section 21 (2) No. 1, Section 1 GWB, it is not an obstacle to the fact that a threatened disadvantage is not unlawful when viewed in isolation. Rather, the illegality can be justified independently by linking it to the inadmissible purpose. The decisive factor is the means-end relationship, which is to be assessed taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.
BGH, decision of July 13, 2020 - KRB 21/20 - OLG Frankfurt am Main
The Cartel Senate of the Federal Court of Justice decided on July 13, 2020 by the presiding judge Prof. Dr. Meier-Beck, the judges Dr. Berg and Dr. Tolkmitt and the judges Dr. Rombach and Dr. Linder in accordance with Section 79 Paragraph 3 Clause 1, Paragraph 5 Clause 1 OWiG
decided:
In response to the General Public Prosecutor's appeal, the decision of the 1st Cartel Senate of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of August 21, 2019 with the findings is overturned.
The matter will be referred back to another antitrust panel of the Higher Regional Court for a new decision, including on the costs of the appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.