Book contents
6 - Cartels
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2013
Summary
Introduction
Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits all agreements and concerted practices between undertakings which have as their object the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition within the internal market. The cartel prohibition is a central point of EU competition law which aims at protecting the internal market from any form of collusion between independent undertakings.
Profits from collusion
Although the significance of antitrust law both in the EU and in other jurisdictions around the world has significantly increased in recent years, it is assumed that national and cross-border cartels are still attractive. The main reason for the undertakings to enter into prohibited agreements with their competitors is higher profits that may be gained from the implemented collusion practices. The coordination of market conduct may bring higher profits than competition. Collusive practices allow the undertakings concerned to exercise market power that they would not otherwise have. For example, through coordinated behaviour market and/or customer allocation may become possible which enables the firms participating in the cartel to request from their purchasers and final consumers prices above the market level, thereby increasing their own profits. Another potential benefit from cartel participation is lower costs. Cartels help to preserve the market status quo and to avoid investments in innovative assets and R&D that would be required in the presence of competition pressure.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Introduction to EU Competition Law , pp. 309 - 377Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013
References
et al., ‘The Economics of Cartels: Incentives, Sanctions, Stability, and Effects’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2 (2011), 405Google Scholar
ECJ (7 January 2004), Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P – Aalborg Portland AS and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, para. 53.
Commission decision of 30 October 2002, Case COMP/E-2/37.784 – Fine Art Auction Houses, available at .
, ‘Effects Analysis in Hub-and-spoke Cartels’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 248Google Scholar
, ‘Collusion in Vertical Relations under Article 81 EC’, Common Market Law Review, 46 (2011), 1027, 1056Google Scholar
, ‘Antitrust Infringements in the Distribution Chain: When is Leniency Available to Suppliers?’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 394Google Scholar
GC (9 July 2003), Case T-224/00 – Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission [2003] ECR II-2597, para. 120.
Commission decision of 7 April 1999, Case IV/36.147 – EPI Code of Conduct, OJ No. L 106 of 23 April 1999, p. 14.
Commission decision of 30 October 2002, Case COMP/E-2/37.784 – Fine Art Auction Houses, available at , paras. 86 and 90.
Commission decision of 21 January 1998, Case IV/35.814 – Alloy surcharge, OJ No. L 100 of 1 April 1998, p. 55.
Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P – ThyssenKrupp v Commission [2005] ECR I-6778.
Case IV/35.814 – Alloy surcharge, OJ No. L 100 of 1 April 1998, p. 55, para. 49.
Commission decision of 20 October 2004, Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 – Raw Tobacco Spain, available at .
Case T-29/05 – Deltafina v Commission [2010]
ommission decision of 20 October 2005, Case COMP/C. 38.281/B.2 – Raw Tobacco Italy, available at
GC (18 July 2005), Case T-241/01 – Scandinavian Airline Systems v Commission [2005] ECR II-2917, para. 85.
Commission decision of 9 December 2004, Case COMP/E-2/37.533 – Choline Chloride, available at .
ECJ (16 December 1975), Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73 – Suiker Unie [1975] ECR 1663.
Commission decision of 25 July 1975, Case IV. 28.967 – Bronbemaling, OJ No. L 249 of 25 September 1975, p. 27.
Commission decision of 26 October 2004, Case COMP/F-1/38.338 – PO/Needles, available at .
Commission decision of 12 November 2008, Case COMP/39125 – Carglass, available at .
Commission decision of 29 September 2004, Case COMP/C.37.750/B2 – Brasseries Kronenbourg, Brasseries Heineken, available at .
Commission decision of 30 April 1999, Case IV/34.250 – Europe Asia Trade Agreement, OJ No. L 193 of 26 July 1999, p. 23.
Commission decision of 4 July 1984, Case IV/30.810 – Synthetic Fibres, OJ No. L 207 of 2 August 1984, p. 17; Commission decision of 19 July 1984
Case IV/30.863 – BPCL/ICI, OJ No. L 212 of 8 August 1984, p. 1.
Commission decision of 4 July 1984, Case IV/30.810 – Synthetic Fibres, OJ No. L 207 of 2 August 1984, p. 17.
Commission decision of 21 October 1998, Case IV/35.691/E-4 – Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel, OJ No. L 24 of 30 January 1999, p. 1.
Confirmed by ECJ (28 June 2005), Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P – Dansk Rørindustri A/S and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425.
Commission decision of 21 October 1998, Case IV/35.691/E-4 – Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel, OJ No. L 24 of 30 January 1999, p. 1, para. 68.
ECJ (23 November 2006), Case C-238/05 – Asnef-Equifax – Ausbanc, [2006] ECR I-11125.
and , European Community Law of Competition (Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2008), para. 5.098Google Scholar
Commission decision of 26 October 1999, Case IV/33.884 – FEG and TU, OJ No. L 39 of 14 February 2000, p. 1
GC (16 December 2003), Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00 – DEP Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Commission [2003] ECR II-5768.
Commission decision of 26 October 1999, Case IV/33.884 – FEG and TU, OJ No. L 39 of 14 February 2000, p. 1, para. 39.
ECJ (16 June 1981), Case 126/80 – Salonia v Poidomani and Giglio [1981] ECR 1563, paras. 23 to 27.
Commission decision of 3 October 2007, Case COMP/37.860 – Morgan Stanley/Visa, summary of the decision published in OJ No. C 183 of 5 August 2009, p. 6
GC (14 April 2011) T-461/07 – Visa Europe and Visa International Service v Commission, nyr.
GC (14 April 2011), Case T-461/07 – Visa Europe and Visa International Service v Commission, nyr, para. 5.
Case COMP/C.2–37.398 – UEFA Champions League, OJ No. L 291 of 8 November 2003, p. 25.
, Efficiency and Justice in European Antitrust Enforcement (Hart Publishing, 2008), p. 181Google Scholar
, ‘On Cartel Deterrence and Fines in the European Union’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 209Google Scholar
ECJ (15 July 1970), Case 41/69 – Chemiefarma NV v Commission [1970] ECR 661, para. 173.
, ‘Rough Justice? An Analysis of the European Commission’s New Fining Guidelines’, Common Market Law Review, 45 (2007), 1285Google Scholar
, ‘The Modernisation of EU Anti-cartel Enforcement: Will the Commission Grasp the Opportunity?’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 191, 202Google Scholar
ECJ (8 February 2007), Case C-3/06 – Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I-1331, para. 37.
, ‘Has the European Commission Become More Severe in Punishing Cartels? Effects of the 2006 Guidelines’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 27Google Scholar
, ‘A Challenge for Europe’s Judges: The Review of Fines in Competition Cases’, European Law Review, 36 (2011), 185Google Scholar
GC (29 November 2005), Case T-62/02 – Union Pigments v Commission [2005] ECR II-5057, para. 155.
and , ‘A Survey of Legal Issues Regarding Fines Imposed in EU Competition Proceedings (2010)’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2 (2011), 356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Fines in European Competition Law’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 369Google Scholar
Cheil Jedang Corporation v Commission [2003]
GC (13 December 2001), Joined Cases T‑45/98 and T‑47/98 – Krupp Thyssen Stainless v Commission [2001] ECR II‑3757, para. 63.
GC (30 September 2003), Case T-203/01 – Michelin v Commission [2003] ECR II-4071, para. 293.
Commission decision of 12 November 2008, Case COMP/39125 – Carglass, available at .
ECJ (11 June 1989), Case 246/86 – Belasco and Others v Commission [1989] ECR 2191, para. 41.
AG Geelhoed, opinion of 19 January 2006 in case C-289/04 P – Showa Denko v Commission [2006] ECR I-5859, para. 61 and footnote 16.
and , ‘Inability to Pay: First Cases and Practical Experiences’, Competition Policy Newsletter, No. 3 (2010), p. 3Google Scholar
, ‘The Controversial Issue of the Parent-company Liability for the Violation of EC Competition Rules by the Subsidiary’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 68Google Scholar
and , ‘Liability of Parent Companies for Antitrust Violations of their Subsidiaries’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 38Google Scholar
, ‘Who is to Blame? Liability of “Economic Units” for Infringements of EU Competition Law’, European Law Review, 36 (2011), 52Google Scholar
, ‘Parental Liability for the Antitrust Infringements of Subsidiaries: A Rebuttable Presumption or Probatio Diabolica?’, European Law Review, 36 (2011), 288Google Scholar
ECJ (10 September 2009), Case C-97/08 P – AKZO Nobel and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I-8237, paras. 60 and 61.
GC (2 February 2012), Case T-76/08 – EI Du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission, nyr.
ECJ (14 July 1972), Case 48/69 – ICI v Commission [1972]
ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-49/92 P – Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999]
Case C-280/06 – ETI and Others [2007]
AG Kokott, opinion of 3 July 2007 in case C-280/06 – ETI and Others [2007]
ECJ (16 November 2000), Case C-297/98 P – SCA Holding v Commission [2000]
ECJ (16 November 2000), Case C-286/98 P – Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [2000]
ECJ (16 November 2000), Case C-279/98 P – Cascades v Commission [2000]
ECJ (16 November 2000), Case 279/98 P – Cascades v Commission [2000] ECR I-9693, paras. 78–80.
ECJ (16 November 2000), Case T-354/94 – Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB v Commission [1998] ECR II-2111, para. 80.
GC (5 June 2012), Case T-214/06 – Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission, nyr, para. 107.
Commission decision of 24 January 2007, Case COMP/F/38.899 – Gas Insulated Switchgear, available at .
GC (5 June 2012), Case T-214/06 – Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission, nyr, paras. 112 et seq.
GC (7 June 2011), Case T-217/06 – Arkema France and Others v Commission, nyr
GC (7 June 2011), Case T-206/06 – Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, nyr.
GC (7 June 2011), Case T-217/06 – Arkema France and Others v Commission, nyr
GC (7 June 2011), Case T-206/06 – Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, nyr.
GC (20 March 2002), Case T-9/99 – HFB and Others v Commission [2002]
ECJ (16 December 1975), Joined Cases 40 to 48, 50, 54 to 56, 111, 113 and 114–73 – Suiker Unie v Commission [1975]
GC (17 December 1991), Case T-6/89 – Enichem Anic v Commission [1991]
Commission decision of 24 January 2007, Case COMP/F/38.899 – Gas Insulated Switchgear, available at , para. 468.
, ‘How Lenient is the EC Leniency Policy? A Matter of Certainty and Predictability’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 14, 18Google Scholar
, ‘“What if Uncle Sam wants you”: Principles and Recent Practice Concerning US Extradition Requests in Cartel Cases’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1 (2010), 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECJ (17 December 1998), Case C-185/95 P – Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998]
ECR I‑8417, para. 58, and ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-49/92 P – Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999]
ECR I‑4125, para. 86; GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 90
ECJ (28 March 1984), Joined Cases 29/83 and 30/83 – Compagnie Royale asturienne des mines and Rheinzink v Commission [1984]
Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission (Woodpulp II) [1993]
SIV and Others v Commission [1992]
Volkswagen v Commission [2000] ECR II‑2707, paras. 43 and 72; GC (25 October 2011)
GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 96.
Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II‑491, paras. 1053 and 1838; GC (25 October 2011)
GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 98.
GC (12 September 2007), Case T-36/05 – Coats Holdings and Coats v Commission [2007]
ECR II – 110, para. 74; GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 99.
GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 100.
ECJ (14 February 1978), Case 27/76 – United Brands v Commission [1978]
ECR 207, para. 265; GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 93.
GC (8 July 2004), Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 – JFE Engineering v Commission [2004]
ECR II-2501, para. 177; GC (25 October 2011), Case T-348/08 – Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission, nyr, para. 93.
Öztürk v Germany, Series A No. 73, and ECtHR (25 August 1987)
Lutz v Germany, Series A No 123-A, and ECJ (8 July 1999)
Hüls v Commission, [1999]
Montecatini v Commission [1999] ECR I‑4539, paras. 175 and 176; GC (25 October 2011)
ECJ (8 December 2011), Case C-272/09 P – KME Germany and Others v Commission, nyr.
, ‘The Standard of Review in Competition Cases Involving Complex Economic Assessments: Towards the Marginalisation of the Marginal Review?’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2 (2011), 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECJ (8 December 2011), Case C-272/09 P – KME Germany and Others v Commission, nyr, para. 94.
, ‘Discretion, Scope of Judicial Review and Institutional Balance in European Law’, Common Market Law Review, 48 (2010), 361Google Scholar
ECJ (8 December 2011), Case C-272/09 P – KME Germany and Others v Commission, nyr, para. 102.
ECJ (8 December 2011), Case C-272/09 P – KME Germany and Others v Commission, nyr, para. 103.
, ‘Breaking the EU Antitrust Enforcement Deadlock: Re-empowering the Courts?’, European Law Review, 36 (2011), 457Google Scholar
ECJ (8 December 2011), Case C-272/09 P – KME Germany and Others v Commission, nyr, para. 104.
ECtHR (27 September 2011), Application No. 43509/08 – Menarini, nyr.
, ‘Administrative Enforcement, Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights in EU Competition Law: A Comparative Contextual-Functionalist Perspective’, Common Market Law Review, 50 (2012), 971Google Scholar
, ‘Due Process in EC Competition Cases: A Distinguished Institution with Flawed Procedures’, European Law Review, 34 (2009), 817, 823 et seq.Google Scholar
ECtHR (23 November 2006), Application No. 73053/01 – Jussila v Finland, nyr, para. 43.
ECJ (11 July 1985), Case 42/84 – Remia v Commission [1985] ECR 2566, para. 34.
GC (17 September 2007), Case T-201/04 – Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3619, para. 87.
ECJ (11 July 1985), Case 42/84 – Remia v Commission [1985] ECR 2566, para. 34.
, ‘The European Commission’s Leniency Policy: A Success?’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 148Google Scholar
, ‘How Lenient is the EC Leniency Policy? A Matter of Certainty and Predictability’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 14, 20Google Scholar
ECJ (28 June 2005), Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P – Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, paras. 388–403
ECJ (29 June 2006), Case C-301/04 P – Commission v SGL Carbon AG [2006] ECR I-5915, paras. 66–80.
, ‘Carrots and Sticks: Leniency and Fines in EC Cartel Cases’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 30Google Scholar
, ‘Leniency Programmes and Protection of Confidentiality: The Experience of the European Commission’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 1 (2010), 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Recent Judgments Regarding Transparency and Access to Documents in the Field of Competition Law: Where does the Court of Justice of the EU Strike the Balance?’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2 (2011) 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Just a Little Sunshine in the Rain: The 2010 Case Law of the European Court of Justice on Access to Documents’, Common Market Law Review, 49 (2011), 1215Google Scholar
CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission, nyr, para. 60; GC (22 May 2012), Case T-344/08 – EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, nyr, para. 117.
GC (15 December 2011), Case T-437/08 – CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission, nyr, para. 72
GC (22 May 2012), Case T-344/08 – EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, nyr, para. 127.
GC (15 December 2011), Case T-437/08 – CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission, nyr, para. 77
GC (22 May 2012), Case T-344/08 – EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, nyr, para. 128.
ECJ (14 June 2011), Case C-360/09 – Pfleiderer, nyr, para. 30.
, ‘Access to the File of a National Competition Authority’, European Law Review, 36 (2011), 56Google Scholar
EWHC (4 April 2012), Claim no. HC08C03243 – National Grid v ABB & Others [2012] EWHC 869 (Ch).
AG Bonn (18 January 2012), Case no. 51 Gs 53/09 – Pfleiderer v Bundeskartellamt.
and , ‘Designing a European Solution for a “one-stop leniency shop”’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 685Google Scholar
and , ‘Immunity and Leniency in EU Cartel Cases: Current Issues’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 82, 86Google Scholar
, ‘The First Cases under the Commission’s Cartel-settlement Procedure: Problems Solved?’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 165, 167Google Scholar
, ‘The Cartel Settlement Procedure in Practice’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 170, 173Google Scholar
and , ‘The Commission’s Settlement Package: EU–US Comparison’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 604Google Scholar
, ‘Competition Enforcement, Regulation and Civil Justice: What is the Case?’, Common Market Law Review, 44 (2006), 1381, 1386 et seqGoogle Scholar
, ‘Damages Actions for the Infringement of EC Competition Law: Compensation or Deterrence?’, European Law Review, 33 (2010), 23Google Scholar
, ‘Optimal Contract Reformation as a New Approach to Private Antitrust Damages in Cartel Cases’, European Law Review, 33 (2010), 349Google Scholar
and , ‘Public vs. Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law: A Survey’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 306Google Scholar
and , ‘How Vitamins Stimulated the Debate on Private Antitrust Litigation’, Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht (2007), 466Google Scholar
, ‘Private Antitrust Litigation in Europe: What Fence is High Enough to Keep out the US Litigation Cowboy?’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 2Google Scholar
, ‘The Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules and Beyond: Reflections on the Utility and Feasibility of Stimulating Private Enforcement through Legislative Action’, Common Market Law Review, 45 (2007), 431, 446Google Scholar
, ‘The Issues of the Passing-on Defence and Indirect Purchaser’s Standing in European Competition Law’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2009), 33Google Scholar
, ‘Scope of Courage and the Principle of “Individual Liability” for Damages: Further Development of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection by the Court of Justice’, European Law Review, 31 (2006), 841Google Scholar
ECJ (20 September 2001), Case C-453/99 – Courage and Crehan [2001]
ECJ (13 July 2006), Joined Cases C-295/04–298/04 – Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico [2006] ECR I-6619.
, ‘Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules: The European Commission’s Green Paper’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 365Google Scholar
, ‘The Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 309Google Scholar
and , ‘The EC White Paper on Antitrust Damage Actions: Why the Member States are (Right to be) Less Than Enthusiastic’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 340Google Scholar
, ‘Awarding Exemplary (or Punitive) Damages in EC Competition Cases with an International Element: The Rome II Regulation and the Commission’s White Paper on Damages’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 430Google Scholar
, ‘Effective Collective Redress in Antitrust and Consumer Protection Matters: A Panacea or a Chimera?’ Common Market Law Review, 49 (2011), 1125, 1153Google Scholar
, ‘Effect of Commission Decisions on Private Antitrust Litigation: Setting the Story Straight’, Common Market Law Review, 45 (2007), 1387Google Scholar
and , ‘Antitrust Class Actions in the European Union: Latest Developments and the Need for a Uniform Regime’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2 (2011), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , ‘The Role of Hearing Officers in EU Competition Proceedings: A Historical and Practical Perspective’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 2 (2011), 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , ‘The Court of First Instance Upholds Two Decisions of the Hearing Officer Clarifying Important Procedural Questions in Antitrust Investigations’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 297Google Scholar
AG Jacobs, opinion of 15 December 1993 in case C-36/92 P – SEP v Commission [1994] ECR I-1911, para. 21.
and , ‘“Little Pig, Little Pig, Let Me Come In”: An Evaluation of the European Commission’s Powers of Inspection in Competition Cases’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 407, 408 et seq.Google Scholar
Commission decision of 30 January 2008, Case COMP/B-1/39.326 – E.ON Energie AG, OJ No. C 240 of 19 September 2008, p. 6.
GC (15 December 2010)
Case T-141/08 – E.ON Energie AG v Commission, nyr; ECJ (22 November 2012)
Commission decision of 24 May 2011, Case COMP/39.796 – Suez Environnement, available at
, ‘Seal Breaking: Practical Compliance Lessons from Recent Cases’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 3 (2012), 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECJ (18 May 1982), Case 155/79 – AM&S Europe v Commission [1982]
ECJ (14 September 2010), Case C-550/07 P – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission [2010]
, ‘Is it Time to Rebrand Legal Professional Privilege in EC Competition Law?’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 125Google Scholar
ECJ (14 September 2010), Case C-550/07 P – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission [2010]
ECJ (18 October 1989), Case 374/87 – Orkem v Commission [1989]
GC (18 June 2008), Case T-410/03 – Hoechst v Commission [2008]
GC (7 June 2011), Case T-217/06 – Arkema France and Others v Commission, nyr, para. 286.
GC (18 June 2008), Case T-410/03 – Hoechst v Commission [2008] ECR II-881, para. 224.
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.