07 Sep 14 Points Of Gentlemen`s Agreement
Four prominent leaders from Telangana and Andhra signed the agreement. In the second place, as regards the allegation that the General Court falsified the extent of the documents at issue, it is in no way apparent from those documents that Toshiba left the gentlemen`s agreement from the Vienna meeting. As the Advocate General stated in No 119 to 121 of his Opinion, it is apparent from the internal memorandum on the Vienna meeting of Mr.M., a member of Fuji, that Toshiba`s participation in the meetings following the creation of TM T&D had yet to be decided. Admittedly, according to the explanatory note drafted by Fuji on the occasion of that meeting, “Toshiba refused the possibility of Toshiba participating in the meetings after the creation of TM T&D (while Mitsubishi is not present).” But the memo also states that “since Mitsubishi was no longer attending these meetings, it was necessary to decide whether TM T&D could participate in the meetings. As regards those agreements, the analysis of the economic and legal context to which the practice belongs may therefore be limited to what is absolutely necessary to demonstrate the existence of an accused restriction of competition. The Gentlemen`s Agreement of Andhra Pradesh (1956) refers to the agreement signed between the rulers of Telangana and Andhra before the establishment of the state of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. The agreement attempted to allay the fears of the people of Telangana by offering protective measures to the people of Telangana. The alleged violations of this agreement led to the Telangana movement in 1969 and are cited as one of the main reasons for a separate state for Telangana. Moreover, the General Court held, in paragraph 231 of the judgment under appeal, that the mere existence of the gentlemen`s agreement constituted an argument which seriously calls into question the plausibility of the appellant`s argument that the barriers to entry on the European market were insurmountable. As the General Court rightly stated in the same recital, it is unlikely that the Japanese and European producers would have concluded a market-sharing agreement if they had not considered themselves at least as potential competitors. The second part which, for the most part, is the reflection in the Rn.
213, 218 and 220 of the judgment under appeal concerns a misasspom by the General Court of the `public distancing` test, since that court relied on the fact that the gentlemen`s agreement was confirmed at the Viennese meeting by ruling out any possibility that Toshiba had publicly distanced itself from that agreement at that meeting. According to Toshiba, Toshiba`s withdrawal from the cartel of the Viennese meeting should have been inferred by the Court of First Instance from the fact that Toshiba had not participated in the Zurich meeting. . . .