Time to Tidy Up EU Competition Law on Information Exchange Object Restriction Concerted Practices?

  • Mark Clough QCEmail author


This article attempts to unravel the cryptic words “object and effect” in Article 101 TFEU as they have been given life by Commission Guidelines and the decisions of the EU Courts. The discussion has to be seen against the background of the philosophical debate that still divides competition policy makers, if not competition lawyers and economists: the debate between the formalistic ordo-liberal interventionist approach and that of the effects-based economics approach developed over the last twenty years. It concludes that new guidelines should be adopted by the Commission to restore legal certainty regarding the conditions to be met for an object infringement in the context of information exchange concerted practices, and to reconcile the apparent conflict between recent case law and past guidelines.


  1. Case No. 1277/1/12/17 (1) Balmoral Tanks Limited and (2) Balmoral Group Holdings Limited v Competition and Markets Authority [2017] CAT 23.Google Scholar
  2. Communication from the Commission—Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements. Text with EEA relevance, OJ C11, 14.1.2011, p. 1–72.Google Scholar
  3. Communication from the Commission—Notice—Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance), OJ C101, 27.4.2004, p. 97–118.Google Scholar
  4. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C326, 26.10.2012, p. 47–390.Google Scholar
  5. Faull, J., Nikpay, A., & Deirdre, T. (2014). The EU Law of Competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Judgment of the Court of 14 July 1972. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities. Case 48–69. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1972:70.Google Scholar
  7. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999. Commission of the European Communities v Anic Partecipazioni SpA. Appeal—Commission’s Rules of Procedure—Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission—Competition rules applicable to undertakings—Concepts of agreement and concerted practice—Responsibility of an undertaking for an infringement as a whole—Attachment of liability for the infringement—Fine. Case C-49/92 P. European Court Reports 1999 I-04125. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1999:356.Google Scholar
  8. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009. T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV and Vodafone Libertel NV v Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit. Reference for a preliminary ruling: College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven—Netherlands. Reference for a preliminary ruling—Article 81(1) EC—Concept of ‘concerted practice’—Causal connection between concerted action and the market conduct of undertakings—Appraisal in accordance with the rules of national law—Whether a single meeting is sufficient or whether concerted action on a regular basis over a long period is necessary. Case C-8/08. European Court Reports 2009 I-04529. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2009:343.Google Scholar
  9. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013. Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt. and Others v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal. Request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága. Competition—Article 101(1) TFEU—Application of similar national regulations—Jurisdiction of the Court—Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and car repairers relating to hourly repair charges—Charges paid depending on the number of insurance contracts concluded for the insurance company by those repairers in their capacity as brokers—Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’. Case C-32/11. Digital reports (Court Reports—General). ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2013:160.Google Scholar
  10. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014. Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) v European Commission. Appeal—Competition—Agreements, decisions and concerted practices—Article 81(1) EC—Payment cards system in France—Decision by an association of undertakings—Issuing market—Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’—Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’ and ‘dormant member “wake-up”’ mechanism—Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’—Examination of the degree of harm to competition. Case C‑67/13 P. Digital reports (Court ReportsGeneral). ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2014:2204.Google Scholar
  11. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015. Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v European Commission. Appeals—Competition—Agreements, decisions and concerted practices—European banana market—Coordination in the setting of quotation prices—Obligation to state reasons—Belated statement of reasons—Belated submission of evidence—Rights of defence—Principle of equality of arms—Principles governing the establishment of the facts—Distortion of the facts—Assessment of the evidence—Market structure—Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object—Burden of proof—Calculation of the fine—Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account—Sales of the same bananas counted twice. Case C-286/13 P. Digital reports (Court ReportsGeneral). ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2015:184.Google Scholar
  12. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017. Intel Corp. v European Commission. Appeal—Article 102 TFEU—Abuse of a dominant position—Loyalty rebates—Commission’s jurisdiction—Regulation (EC) No 1/2003—Article 19. Case C-413/14 P. Digital reports (Court ReportsGeneral). ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2017:632.Google Scholar
  13. Summary of Commission Decision of 7 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT. 39850—Container Shipping) (notified under document C[2016] 4215). OJ C327, 6.9.2016, p. 4–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dentons EuropeBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations