E. Spending distribution between the Telangana and Andhra regions. The allocation of expenditure between state resources is within the jurisdiction of the government and state legislation. However, since it was agreed between the representatives of Andhra and Telangana that the centralised and general management expenditures of the new State should be borne proportionally by the two regions and that the balance of revenues should be reserved for development expenditures in the Territory of Telangana, the State Government is free to act in accordance with the terms of the budget agreement. The Indian government proposes to draw the attention of the Chief Minister of Andhra to this particular understanding and to express the hope that it will be implemented. In this regard, it should be stressed that, in order to be subject to the prohibition of Article 101, paragraph 1, of the EUS, an agreement must have as its “purpose or effect” the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the internal market. According to consistent court jurisprudence since LTM (56/65, EU:C:1966:38), the alternative nature of this requirement, such as the “Conjunkus” or “shows” that the exact purpose of the agreement must first be examined (ING Pensii, C-172/14, EU:C:2015:484, point 30). It was also agreed that the provisions of this agreement would be reviewed after ten years. However, the Heads of State and Government could not agree on the following two issues, which are not mentioned in the agreement. The second part, which focuses on the recitals of points 213, 218 and 220 of the impugned judgment, argues that the Tribunal`s “public distancing procedure” was misaprowed, since the tribunal argued that the gentlemen`s agreement had been confirmed at the Vienna meeting by excluding any possibility that Toshiba had publicly distanced itself from that agreement at that meeting.
On the contrary, Toshiba should have inferred from the Tribunal that Toshiba was withdrawing from the Wiener meeting cartel because Toshiba had not participated in the Zurich meeting. The Gentlemen`s Agreement of Andhra Pradesh (1956) refers to the agreement signed between the leaders of Telangana and Andhra before the creation of the state of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. The agreement was intended to address the fears of the people of Telangana by offering protection 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 given for calling for the separation of the state for Telangana. In this regard, it should be noted that the Commission provides evidence that the company concerned participated in meetings in which anti-competitive agreements were concluded, without clearly objecting to them, in order to sufficiently demonstrate that the company was involved in the cartel.