Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-rcd7l Total loading time: 1.757 Render date: 2021-10-22T14:43:28.618Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

2 - Key concepts of Article 101 TFEU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Moritz Lorenz
Affiliation:
Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
Get access

Summary

The scheme of Article 101 TFEU

Article 101 TFEU is one of the three pillars of EU competition law. It prohibits restrictive agreements between independent market operators acting either at the same level of the economy (horizontal agreements), often as actual or potential competitors, or at different levels (vertical agreements), mostly as producer and distributor. It also precludes decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices. These three types of coordinated market behaviour fall into the ambit of EU competition law if they may affect trade between Member States to an appreciable extent and if they have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market.

The prohibition – Article 101(1) TFEU

Article 101 TFEU consists of three paragraphs the first of which sets out a general prohibition. It precludes any form of collusion between undertakings which may have an adverse effect on undistorted competition within the internal market. The provision contains a list of different prohibited market conduct types. The list is not exhaustive and comprises the following examples:

  • direct or indirect fixing of purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

  • limiting or controlling production, markets, technical development, or investment;

  • sharing of markets or sources of supply;

  • applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

  • making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lianos, , ‘Collusion in Vertical Relations under Article 81 EC’, Common Market Law Review, 45 (2008), 1027, 1030Google Scholar
Kalbfleisch, , ‘Aiming for Alliance: Competition Law and Consumer Welfare’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 3 (2011), 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, and King, , ‘Does Competition Law Adequately Protect Consumers?’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 412Google Scholar
Marsden, and Whelan, , ‘“Consumer Detriment” and its Application in EC and UK Competition Law’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 569Google Scholar
GC (27 September 2006), Case T-168/01 – GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission [2006] ECR II-2969, para. 118.
ECJ (6 October 2009), Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P, C-519/06 P – GlaxoSmithKline Services and Others v Commission and Others [2009] ECR I-9291, para. 63.
Nazzini, , ‘Article 81 EC between Time Present and Time Past: A Normative Critique of “Restriction of Competition” in EU Law’, Common Market Law Review, 43 (2006), 497, 527Google Scholar
Dunne, , ‘Knowing When to See It: State Activities, Economic Activities, and the Concept of Undertaking’, Columbia Journal of European Law, 16 (2010), 427, 434Google Scholar
ECJ (23 April 1991), Case C-41/90 – Höfner and Elser v Macroton GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, para. 21.
ECJ (19 February 2002), Case C-309/99 – Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577, para. 57.
GC (12 December 2006), Case T-155/04 – SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission [2006] ECR II-4797, para. 54
ECJ (26 March 2009), Case C-113/07 P – SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission and Eurocontrol [2009] ECR I-2207.
ECJ (25 October 2001), Case C-475/99 – Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089.
GC (12 December 2006), Case T-155/04 – SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission [2006] ECR II-4797, para. 89.
ECJ (26 March 2009), Case C-113/07 P – SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission and Eurocontrol [2009] ECR I-2207, para. 76.
Commission decision of 19 April 2001, Case 37.576 – UEFA’s Broadcasting Regulations, OJ No. L 171 of 26 June 2001, p. 12, para. 47.
ECJ (16 November 1995), Case C-244/94 – FFSA and Others v Ministère de l’Agriculture and de la Pêche [1995] ECR I-4013, para. 22.
For the latter see ECJ (19 February 2002), Case C-309/99 – Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577.
Commission decision of 26 May 1978, Case IV/29.559 – RAI/Unitel, OJ No. L 157 of 15 June 1978, p. 39.
See, e.g., ECJ (22 January 2002), Case C-218/00 – Cisal [2002] ECR I-691.
AG Fennelly, opinion of 6 February 1997 in case C-70/95 – Sodemare and Others v Regione Lombardia [1997] ECR I-3395, para. 29.
ECJ (16 March 2004), Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01, C-355/01 – AOK-Bundesverband and Others [2004] ECR I-2493, paras. 51–2
Krajewski, and Farley, , ‘Limited Competition in National Health Systems and the Application of Competition Law: The AOK Bundesverband Case’, European Law Review, 29 (2004), 842Google Scholar
ECJ (5 March 2009), Case C-350/07 – Kattner Stahlbau [2009] ECR I-1513, paras. 44–59.
ECJ (18 March 1997), Case C-343/95 – Cali & Figli v Servizi Ecologici Porto di Genova [1997] ECR I-1547, para. 23.
ECJ (11 July 2006), Case C-205/03 P – Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v Commission [2006] ECR I-6295.
ECJ (4 May 1988), Case 30/87 – Corinne Bodson v Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1988] ECR 2479, para. 19.
Bailey, , ‘Presumptions in EU Competition Law’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 362Google Scholar
GC (12 December 2007), Case T-112/05 – Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-5049, paras. 57–85.
Commission decision of 15 May 1991, Case IV/32186 – Gosme/Martell-DMP, OJ No. L 185 of 11 July 1991, p. 23.
Commission decision of 16 January 1991, Case IV/32.732 – Ijsselcentrale, OJ No. L 28 of 2 February 1991, p. 32.
GC (15 September 2005), Case T-325/01 – DaimlerChrysler v Commission [2005] ECR II-3319, para. 88
Henty, , ‘Agency Agreements – What are the Risks? The CFI’s Judgment in DaimlerChrysler AG v Commission’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 102Google Scholar
Commission Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, OJ No. C 130 of 19 May 2010, p. 1, para. 13.
ECJ (8 July ), Case C-49/92 P – Commission v Anic Partecipazioni SpA [1999] ECR I-4125, para. 108.
GC (26 October 2000), Case T-41/96 – Bayer v Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, para. 69.
ECJ (15 June 1976), Case 51/75 – EMI Records v CBS United Kingdom [1976] ECR 811, para. 30.
GC (2 July 1992), Case T-61/89 – Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening v Commission [1992] ECR II-1931.
Commission decision of 13 December 2000, Case COMP/33.133-B – Soda-ash, OJ No. L 10 of 15 January 2003, p. 1, para. 56.
GC (26 October 2000), Case T-41/96 – Bayer v Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, para. 68.
Commission decision of 13 June 1987, Case IV/31.741 – Sandoz, OJ No. L 222 of 10 August 1987, p. 28, para. 26
ECJ (11 January 1990), Case C-277/87 – Sandoz Prodotti Farmaceutici v Commission [1990] ECR I-45.
Whish, and Bailey, , Competition Law (Oxford University Press, 7th edn, 2012), p. 100Google Scholar
ECJ (21 September 1999), Case C-67/96 – Albany [1999] ECR I-5751, para. 59
Commission decision of 30 September 1986, Case IV/31.362 – Irish Banks’ Standing Committee, OJ No. L 295 of 18 October 1986, p. 28, para. 16.
GC (20 April 1999), Joined Cases T-305/94 to T-307/94, T-313/94 to T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94, T-335/94 – LVM v Commission [1999] ECR II-931, para. 773.
GC (15 March 2000), Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95, T-104/95 – Cimenteries CBR v Commission [2000] ECR II-491, paras. 4109–12.
GC (5 December 2006), Case T-303/02 – Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV v Commission [2006] ECR II-4567, para. 103.
GC (17 December 1991), Case T-7/89 – SA Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission [1991] ECR II-1711, paras. 256 et seq.
Joshua, , ‘Single Continuous Infringement of Article 81 EC: Has the Commission Stretched the Concept beyond the Limit of Its Logic?’, European Competition Journal, 5 (2005), 451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monti, , EC Competition Law (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-235/92 P – Montecatini SpA v Commission [1999] ECR I-4539.
Seifert, , ‘The Single Complex and Continuous Infringement – “Effet” Utilitarism?’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 546, 553 et seqGoogle Scholar
Commission decision of 9 December 2004, Case COMP/E-2/37.533 – Choline Chloride, OJ No L 190 of 22 July 2005, p. 22, para. 9
cf. GC (12 December 2007), Joined Cases T-101/05, T- 111/05 – BASF and UCB v Commission, [2007] ECR II-4949, para. 139.
Bailey, , ‘Single, Overall Agreement in EU Competition Law’, Common Market Law Review, 47 (2010), 473, 479Google Scholar
Commission decision of 3 September 2004, Case C.38.069 – Copper Plumbing Tubes, OJ No. L 192 of 13 July 2006, p. 21.
Commission decision of 3 September 2004, Case C.38.069 – Copper Plumbing Tubes, OJ No. L 192 of 13 July 2006, p. 21, para. 464.
GC (19 May 2010), Case T-18/05 – IMI and Others v Commission [2010] ECR II-1769, para. 86.
Einhaus, , ‘Water Flowing? News on the Continuous Infringement’, European Law Reporter, 9 (2010), 289, 295Google Scholar
Commission decision of 10 January 1996, Case IV/34.279/F3 – ADALAT, OJ No. L 201 of 9 August 1996, p. 1.
GC (26 October 2000), Case T-41/96 – Bayer v Commission [2000] ECR II-3383.
ECJ (6 January 2004), Joined Cases C-2/01, C-3/01 – BAI and Commission v Bayer [2004] ECR I-23.
GC (26 October 2000), Case T-41/96 – Bayer v Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, para. 71.
ECJ (6 January 2004), Joined Cases C-2/01, C-3/01 – BAI and Commission v Bayer [2004] ECR I-23, para. 88.
GC (3 December 2003), Case T-208/01 – Volkswagen v Commission [2003] ECR II-5141; ECJ (13 July 2006), Case C-74/04 P – Commission v Volkswagen [2006] ECR I-6585.
Commission decision of 30 October 2002, Cases COMP/35.587, COMP/35.706, COMP/36.321 – Nintendo, OJ No. L 255 of 8 October 2003, p. 33, paras. 162–9.
GC (30 September 2003), Joined Cases T-191/98, T-212/98 to T-214/98- Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-3275, para. 1130.
US Supreme Court, Parker v Brown, 317 US 341 (1943), 351.
US Supreme Court, Goldfarb v Virginia State Bar, 421 US 773 (1975), 790.
US Supreme Court, Cantor v Detroit Edison Co., 428 US 579 (1976), 593.
US Supreme Court, California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v Midcal Aluminium, Inc., 445 US 97 (1980), 105.
Gal, and Faibish, , ‘Six Principles for Limiting Government-Facilitated Restraints on Competition’, Common Market Law Review, 44 (2007), 69, 89Google Scholar
ECJ (18 June 1998), Case C-35/96 – Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851, paras. 39
ECJ (15 May 1975), Case C-71/74 – Fruit-en Groentenimporthandel and Frubo v Commission [1975] ECR 563, paras. 28–32.
Commission decision of 24 June 2004, Case COMP/A.38549 – Belgian Architects’ Association, OJ No. L 4 of 6 January 2005, p. 10.
GC (26 January 2005), Case T-193/02 – Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-209, para. 72.
ECJ (27 September 1988), Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85, C-125/85, C-126/85 to C-129/85 – Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission (Woodpulp) [1988] ECR 5193.
GC (26 January 2005), Case T-193/02 – Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-209, para. 69.
Commission decision of 26 July 1976, Case IV/28.980 – Pabst Richarz/BNIA, OJ No. L 231 of 21 August 1976, p. 24.
ECJ (30 January 1985), Case 123/83 – BNIC v Clair [1985] ECR 391, p. 416.
Bellamy, and Child, , European Community Law of Competition (Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2008), p. 138Google Scholar
Commission decision of 9 June 1989, Case IV/27.958 – National Sulphuric Acid Association OJ No. L 190 of 5 July 1989, p. 22, para. 6.
ECJ (11 July 1989), Case 246/86 – Belasco and Others v Commission [1989] ECR 2117, para. 5.
ECJ (8 November 1983), Joined Cases 96/82 to 102/82, 104/82, 105/82, 108/82, 110/82 – NV IAZ International Belgium and Others v Commission [1983] ECR 3369, para. 20.
ECJ (27 January 1987), Case 45/85 – Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405, para. 30.
GC (28 March 2001), Case T-144/99 – Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v Commission [2001] ECR II-1087, paras. 72–80.
ECJ (14 July 1972), Joined Cases 48/69, 49/69, 51/69 to 57/69 – ICI v Commission [1972] ECR 619, paras. 64–5.
ECJ (16 December 1975), Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73, 114/73 – Suiker Unie v Commission [1975] ECR 1663, para. 173.
GC (15 March 2000), Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95, T-104/95 – Cimenteries CBR v Commission [2000] ECR [2000] II-491.
ECJ (4 June 2009), Case C-8/08 – T-Mobile Netherlands and Others [2009] ECR I-4529.
GC (12 July 2001), Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98, T-207/98 – Tate & Lyle and Others [2001] ECR II-2035.
ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-199/92 P – Hüls [1999] ECR I-4287, para. 160.
Bailey, , ‘Restrictions of Competition by Object under Article 101 TFEU’, Common Market Law Review, 49 (2012), 559, 587Google Scholar
ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-199/92 P – Hüls, [1999] ECR I-4287, paras. 163–5.
ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-49/92 C – Commission v Anic Partecipazioni SpA [1999] ECR I-4125, para. 121.
ECJ (31 March 1993), Joined Cases C-89/85, C‑104/85, C‑114/85, C‑116/85, C‑117/85 and C‑125/85 to C‑129/85 – Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission (Woodpulp II) [1993] ECR I-1307, paras. 126, 127.
GC (27 September 2006), Case T-168/01 – GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission [2006] ECR II-2969, para. 109.
ECJ (16 December 1975), Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73, 114/73 – Suiker Unie v Commission [1975] ECR 1663, paras. 174–175.
ECJ (13 July 1966), Joined Cases 56/64, 58/64 – Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299, p. 343.
ECJ (30 June 1966), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, p. 249.
GC (8 July 2004), Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00, T-78/00 – JFE Engineering v Commission [2004] ECR II-2501, para. 393.
GC (8 July 2004), Case T-44/00 – Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission [2004] ECR II-2223, para. 30, 196.
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. 184.
Commission decision of 21 February 2007, Case COMP/E-1/38.823 – PO/Elevators and Escalators, available at , para. 22; GC (9 July 2003)
Case T-224/00 – Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission [2003]
ECR II-2597; GC (11 March 1999), Case T-141/94 – Thyssen Stahl v Commission [1999]
ECR II-347, para. 675; GC (6 April 1995), Case T-148/89 – Tréfilunion SA v Commission [1995] ECR II-1063, para. 109.
GC (8 September 2010), Case T-29/05 – Deltafina v Commission [2011] ECR II-4077, para. 277.
Commission decision of 20 October 2004, Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 – Raw Tobacco Spain, available at , paras. 77–83.
GC (29 June 1995), Case T-32/91 – Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II-1825; Commission decision of 24 January 2007, Case COMP/F/38.899 – Gas Insulated Switchgear, available at .
Commission decision of 5 December 2001, Case COMP/37.800/F3 – Luxembourg Brewers, OJ No. L 253 of 21 September, p. 21
Commission decision of 5 September 1979, Case IV/29.021– BP Kemi – DDSF, OJ No. L 286 of 14 November 1979, p. 32.
ECJ (25 March 1981) Case 61/80 – Coöperatieve Stremsel – en Kleurselfabriek v Commission [1981] ECR 851, para. 12.
Bailey, , ‘Presumptions in EU Competition Law, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 362Google Scholar
Kokkoris, , ‘Purchase Price Fixing: A per se Infringement?’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 473Google Scholar
ECJ (13 July 1966), Joined Cases 56/64, 58/64 – Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the TFEU to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ No. L 102 of 23 April 2010, p. 1, Article 4.
GC (27 September 2006), Case T-168/01 – GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission [2006] ECR II-2969, para. 147.
ECJ (8 July 1999), Case C-199/92 P – Hüls [1999] ECR I-4287, para. 163.
ECJ (28 February 1991), Case C-234/89 – Delimitis v Henninger Bräu [1991] ECR I-935.
ECJ (30 June 1966), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, para. 8.
GC (2 May 2006), Case T-328/03 – O2 (Germany) v Commission [2006] ECR II-1231, paras. 65–117.
Marquis, , ‘O2 (Germany) v Commission and the exotic mysteries of Article 81(1) EC’, European Law Review, 32 (2007), 29, 44Google Scholar
Robertson, , ‘What is a Restriction of Competition? The Implications of the CFI’s Judgment in O2 Germany and the Rule of Reason’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 252, 260Google Scholar
GC (23 October 2003), Case T-65/98 – Van den Bergh Foods Ltd. v Commission [2003] ECR II-4653, para. 106.
ECJ (30 June 1966), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, p. 250.
ECJ (28 February 1991), Case C-234/89 – Delimitis v Henninger Bräu [1991] ECR I-935, para. 22.
GC (15 September 1998), Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94, T-388/94 – European Night Services and Others [1998] ECR II-3141, para. 137.
GC (2 July 1992), Case T-61/89 – Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening v Commission [1992] ECR II-1931.
ECJ (13 July 1966), Joined Cases 56/64, 58/64 – Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299, p. 341.
GC (23 October 2003), Case T-65/98 – Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission [2003] ECR II-4653, para. 83.
GC (18 September 2001), Case T-112/99 – M6 and Others v Commission [2001] ECR II-2459, para. 106.
ECJ (11 July 1985), Case 42/84 – Remia BV and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 2545, para. 19.
Commission decision of 5 July 1999, Case No. IV/M.1569 – Gränges/Norsk Hydro, available at , para. 22.
ECJ (28 January 1986), Case 161/84 – Pronuptia [1986] ECR 353, para. 27.
ECJ (15 December 1994), C-250/92 – Gøttrup-Klim and Others Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [1994] ECR ECR I-5641.
ECJ (19 February 2002), C-309/99 – Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577.
Delimatsis, , ‘“Thou shall not . . . (dis)trust”: Codes of Conduct and Harmonization of Professional Standards in the EU’, Common Market Law Review, 47 (2010), 1049, 1080Google Scholar
ECJ (19 February 2002), C-309/99 – Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577, para. 97.
ECJ (18 July 2006), Case C-519/04 P – Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, para. 42.
ECJ (18 July 2006), Case C-519/04 P – Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991.
Gorecki, and Mackey, , ‘Hemat v Medical Council: Its Implications for Irish and EU Competition Law’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 285Google Scholar
Loozen, , ‘Professional Ethics and Restraints of Competition’, European Law Review, 31 (2006), 28, 39Google Scholar
Monti, , ‘Article 81 EC and Public Policy’, Common Market Law Review, 39 (2002), 1057, 1088 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szyszczak, , ‘Competition and Sport’, European Law Review, 32 (2007), 95Google Scholar
Lavrijssen, , ‘What Role for National Competition Authorities in Protecting Non-competition Interests after Lisbon?’, European Law Review, 35 (2010), 636Google Scholar
US Supreme Court, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v United States, 221 US 1 (1911), at 60.
US Supreme Court, National Soc’y of Prof. Engineers, 435 U.S. 679 (1978), at 692
US Supreme Court, National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 US 85 (1984), 104–113
US Supreme Court, Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 476 US 447 (1986), 457–65.
US Supreme Court, California Dental Ass’n v. Federal Trade Commission, 526 US 756 (1999), 780 et seq.
Psychogiopoulou, , ‘EC Competition Law and Cultural Diversity: The Case of the Cinema, Music and Book Publishing Industries’, European Law Review, 30 (2005), 838Google Scholar
Basaran, , ‘How Should Article 81 EC Address Agreements that Yield Environmental Benefits?’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 479Google Scholar
GC (18 September 2001), Case T-112/99 – M6 and Others v Commission [2001] ECR II-2459, para. 72.
GC (24 October 1991), Case T-1/89 – Rhône-Poulenc SA v Commission [1991] ECR II-867, para. 126; ECJ (8 July 1999)
Case C-49/92 P – Commission v Anic Partecipazioni SpA [1999] ECR I-4125, para. 108
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.
Commission decision of 28 January 2009, Case 39.406 – Marine Hoses, summary decision published in OJ No. C 168 of 21 July 2009, p. 6, para. 9.
Commission decision of 9 June 1989, Case IV/27.958 – National Sulphuric Acid Association, OJ No. L 190 of 5 July 1989, p. 22, para. 6
ECJ (15 December 1994), Case C-250/92 – Gøttrup-Klim and Others Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [1994] ECR I-5641, para. 35.
Commission decision of 22 December 1972, Case IV/243, 244, 245 – CIMBEL, OJ No. L 303 of 31 December 1972, p. 24.
Commission decision of 13 July 1994, Case IV/C/33.833 – Cartonboard, OJ No. L 243 of 19 September 1994, p. 1, para. 133.
Commission decision of 24 July 2002, Case COMP/E-3/36.700 – Industrial and Medical Gases, OJ No. L 84 of 1 April 2003, p. 1, para. 359.
ECJ (6 November 1979), Joined Cases 16/79 to 20/79 – Danis [1979] ECR 3327, para. 7.
ECJ (29 October 1980), Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 – Heintz van Landewyck SARL v Commission [1980] ECR 3125, paras. 106–41.
Commission decision of 5 February 1992, Case IV/31.572, 32.571 – Building and Construction Industry in the Netherlands, OJ No. L 92 of 7 April 1992, p. 1, para. 86.
Commission decision of 13 July 1994, Case IV/C/33.833 – Cartonboard, OJ No. L 243 of 19 September 1994, p. 1, para. 175
GC (14 May 1998), Case T-295/94 – Buchmann GmbH v Commission [1998] ECR II-813.
Commission decision of 2 August 1989, Case IV/31.553 – Welded Steel Mesh, OJ No. L 260 of 6 September 1989, p. 1, para. 78
Commission decision of 21 December 1988, Case IV/31.865 – PVC, OJ No. L 74 of 17 March 1989, p. 1, para. 38
Commission decision of 17 December 1980, Case IV/29.869 – Italian Cast Glass, OJ No. L 383 of 31 December 1980, pp. 19, 24.
ECJ (15 October 2003), Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P – Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002]
ECR I-8375, para. 487; Commission decision of 2 April 2003, Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 – French Beef, OJ No. L 209 of 19 August 2003, p. 12, para. 130.
Commission decision of 31 December 1972, Case IV/243, 244, 245 – CIMBEL, OJ No. L 303 of 31 December 1972, p. 24, paras. 18–29.
Commission decision of 23 November 1984, Case IV/30.907 – Peroxygen Products, OJ No. L 35 of 7 February 1985, p. 1, para. 44
Commission decision of 12 June 1978, Case IV/29.453 – SNPE-LEL, OJ No. L 191 of 14 July 1978, p. 41, para. 13;
ECJ (28 February 1986), Case 161/84 – Pronuptia [1986] ECR 353, para. 26; ECJ (16 December 1975), Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73, 114/73 – Suiker Unie v Commission [1975] ECR 1663, paras. 550, 553.
ECJ (13 July 1966), Joined Cases 56/64, 58/64 – Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966]
ECR 322; cf. Commission decision of 20 September 2000, Case COMP/36.653 – Opel, OJ No. L 59 of 28 February 2001, p. 1, para. 136.
Commission decision of 5 September 1979, Case IV/29.021 – BP Kemi – DDSF, OJ No. L 286 of 14 November 1979, p. 32, para. 80.
GC (12 September 2007), Case T-30/05 – Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission [2007]
ECR II-107, para. 188, upheld by ECJ (3 September 2009), Case C-534/07 P – Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission [2009] ECR I-7415.
Commission decision of 16 December 2003, Case C.38.240 – Industrial Tubes, OJ No. L 125 of 28 April 2004, p. 50, paras. 10–11
GC (6 May 2009), Case T-116/04 – Wieland-Werke and Others [2009] ECR II-1087.
ECJ (19 October 1977), Case C-124/76 – Moulins Pont-à-Mousson v ONIC [1977] ECR 1795, para. 17.
GC (12 January 1995), Case T-102/92 – Viho v Commission [1995] ECR II-17, para. 51.
GC (12 December 1996), Case T-19/92 – Leclerc v Commission [1996] ECR II-1851, paras. 112–17.
Commission decision of 15 May 1974, Case IV/400 – Agreements between Manufacturers of Glass Containers, OJ No. L 160 of 17 June 1974, p. 1, para. 34.
Commission decision of 2 December 1981, Case IV/25.757 – Hasselblad, OJ No. L 161 of 12 June 1982, p. 18, para. 57
ECJ (21 February 1984), Case 86/82 – Hasselblad v Commission [1984] ECR 883, para. 34.
ECJ (25 February 1986), Case 193/83 – Windsurfing International v Commission [1986] ECR 611, paras. 54–9.
ECJ (13 July 2006), Case C-295/04 to C-298/04 – Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619, paras. 50–2.
ECJ (30 June 1966), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, p. 249.
ECJ (13 July 1966), Joined Cases 56/64, 58/64 – Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299, p. 341.
ECJ (9 July 1969), Case 5/69 – Völk [1969] ECR 295, paras. 5 and 7.
ECJ (7 June 1983), Joined Cases 100/80 to 103/80 – Musique Diffusion française (re Pioneer) v Commission [1983] ECR 1825; ECJ (10 July 1980)
Case 30/78 – Distillers Company (re Pimms) v Commission [1980] ECR 2229.
ECJ (1 June 1999), Case C-126/97 – Eco Swiss v Benetton [1999] ECR I-3055, para. 36.
ECJ (30 June 1966), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, p. 250.
ECJ (6 February 1973), Case 48/72 – SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin Janssen [1973] ECR 77, para. 6
ECJ (25 November 1971), Case 22/71 – Béguelin Import v G.L. Import Export [1971] ECR 949, para. 29.
ECJ (6 February 1973), Case 48/72 – SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin Janssen [1973] ECR 77, para. 26.
ECJ (30 June 1996), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1996] ECR 235.
Smith, , Competition Law: Enforcement and Procedure (Butterworths, 2001), p. 446Google Scholar
Hirsch, Montag and Säcker, (eds.), Competition Law: European Community Practice and Procedure, Article-by-Article Commentary (Sweet & Maxwell, 2007), section H. margin number 2–8–056
ECJ (13 June 2006), Joined Cases C-295/04 to 298/04 – Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619, para. 57.
ECJ (20 September 2001), Case C-453/99 – Courage Ltd and Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, para. 22.
ECJ (20 September 2001), Case C-453/99 – Courage Ltd and Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, para. 24.
ECJ (30 June 1966), Case 56/65 – Société Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, p. 250.
ECJ (14 December 1983), Case 319/82 – Société de Vente de Ciments et Bétons de l’Est v Kerpen&Kerpen [1983] ECR 4173, para. 11.
GC (15 June 1994), Case T-17/93 – Matra Hachette v Commission [1994] ECR II-595, para. 85.
GC (19 March 2003), Case T-213/00 – CMA GCM and Others v Commission, [2003] ECR II-913, para. 226
GC (28 February 2002), Case T-86/95 – Compagnie Générale Maritime and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-1011, para. 343.
ECJ (13 July 1966), Joined Cases 56/64, 58/64 – Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299, 348.
GC (11 July 1996), Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93, T-546/93 – Métropole Télévision v Commission [1996] ECR II-649, para. 118.
Commission decision of 29 April 1994, Case IV/34.456 – Stichting Baksteen, OJ No. L 131 of 26 May 1994, p. 15, para. 27.
Commission decision of 17 September 2001, Case COMP/34493 etc. – DSD and others, OJ No. L 319 of 4 December 2001, p. 1, para. 144
Commission decision of 24 January 1999, Case IV.F.1/36.718 – CECED, OJ No. L 187 of 26 July 2000, p. 47, paras. 47–57.
Commission decision of 23 December 1992, Case IV/33.814 – Ford Volkswagen, OJ No. L 20 of 28 January 1993, p. 14, para. 23
GC (15 July 1994) in Case T-17/93 – Matra Hachette v Commission [1994] ECR II-595.
Commission decision of 6 October 1994. Case IV/34.776 – Pasteur Mérieux-Merck, OJ No. L 309 of 2 December 1994, p. 1, para. 89.
GC (27 September 2006), Case T-168/01 – GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission [2006] ECR II-2969, paras. 301 et seq.
Sufrin, , ‘The Evolution of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty’, Antitrust Bulletin, 51 (2006), 915, 952–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission decision of 24 June 1996, Case IV.34.607 – BNP-Dresdner Bank, OJ No. L 188 of 27 July 1996, p. 37.
GC (28 February 2003), Case T-395/94 – Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-875, para. 330.

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Key concepts of Article 101 TFEU
  • Moritz Lorenz, Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
  • Book: An Introduction to EU Competition Law
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087452.003
Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

  • Key concepts of Article 101 TFEU
  • Moritz Lorenz, Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
  • Book: An Introduction to EU Competition Law
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087452.003
Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

  • Key concepts of Article 101 TFEU
  • Moritz Lorenz, Martin Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
  • Book: An Introduction to EU Competition Law
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087452.003
Available formats
×