In that context, the Court has held, inter alia, that passive forms of participation in the infringement, such as the presence of an undertaking at meetings at which anti-competitive agreements have been concluded without that obligation clearly presciating it, indicate collusion capable of rendering the undertaking liable under Article 81(1) EC, given that a party which implicitly approves an unlawful initiative without publicly distancing itself from its content or notifying it to the administrative authorities, encourages and affects the continuation of the infringement (see judgment in Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission, Joined C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P, UE:C:2005:408, paragraphs 142 and 143, and the case-law referred to therein). This conclusion is also confirmed by the Commission`s administrative practice. Already in Commission Decision 80/1334/EEC of 17 In the context of a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case IV/29.869 – Italian cast iron glass) (OJ 1980 L 383, p. 19), that institution took the view that a consultancy firm which had participated in the implementation of a cartel had infringed Article 81(1) EC. There is nothing in a subsequent decision to indicate that the Commission has revised that interpretation of the scope of that provision. In the present case, the conditions for a valid finding that AC-Treuhand is liable by reason of its participation in the agreements at issue and in the concerted practices are therefore satisfied. By the contested decision, the Commission found that several undertakings had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1). 3.
by participating in a series of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices concerning the EEA, on the one hand, the tin stabilisers sector and, on the other hand, the epoxidized soybean oil and esters sector (`the ESBO/Ester sector`). As regards the term `concerted action`, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that Article 81(1) EC draws a distinction between that term and, in particular, the terms `agreement` and `decision of an association of undertakings`, for the sole purpose of identifying different forms of collusion between undertakings which subjectively have the same character and which arise only in terms of their intensity and forms, To that effect, the judgments in Commission v Anic Partecipazioni, C-49/92 P, EU:C:1999:356, paragraph 112, and T-Mobile Netherlands a., C-8/08, EU:C:2009:343, p. 23). . .