Article 101 meaning

This Checklist can be used to evaluate compliance of vertical agreements with EU competition law, notably under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 (VBER 2022). For analysis of the VBER 2022, see further, Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements and The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 Framework for assessment When applying EU law to vertical agreements, it is necessary to consider: The competition rules under Article 101 TFEU: Whether the agreement is captured by Article 101(1) TFEU at all (although, in practice, the VBER 2022—and other block exemptions—may often be considered before Article 101 TFEU). Whether the agreement restricts competition at all (this is frequently overlooked)—some categories of agreement may not be restrictive of competition. Also, agency will fall outside Article 101 TFEU where there is a genuine agency situation (exercise caution, as restrictions in an agency agreement may still fall foul of Article 101 TFEU)...

This checklist outlines the key matters to weigh when preparing fresh vertical agreements, or revising current ones, to determine whether they qualify for the block exemption under Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/720, the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022 (VBER 2022), together with the 2022 Vertical Guidelines. It is not a full manual to VBER 2022; rather, it serves where a commercial lawyer seeks confirmation that a vertical arrangement sits within VBER 2022 (and any guidance released pursuant to it). Introduction to EU VBER 2022 Any arrangement that influences trade or limits competition within the EU can fall under the ban on anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1) TFEU. That said, an agreement is not barred if it either: qualifies for an individual exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU, or falls within an applicable block exemption Before 1 June 2022, the pertinent block exemption for vertical arrangements was set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2010 (VBER...

Horizontal and vertical agreements that include clauses which would otherwise breach Article 101(1) TFEU can, in certain cases, escape the ban on anti-competitive arrangements by relying on one or more relevant block exemption regulations adopted by the Commission under Article 101(3) TFEU, which exclude specified categories of agreements from the application of Article 101(1) TFEU. This Checklist sets out a snapshot of the EU block exemption regulations currently in effect and outlines the key criteria that must be met for each regulation to take effect. Block exemptions applying to horizontal agreements The following block exemption regulations concern horizontal arrangements, that is, agreements between undertakings operating at the same tier of the supply chain (principally agreements between rivals). For exemptions relevant to vertical arrangements, refer to Block exemptions applying to vertical agreements below...

Antitrust Court of Justice issues judgment in national reference from the Netherlands proposing that parity clauses are not ancillary restrictions for the purposes of EU competition law The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C- 264/23 Booking,com BV and Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbH v 25hours Hotel Company Berlin GmbH and Others, concerning a Dutch reference seeking clarification on whether wide and narrow parity clauses are ancillary restraints under Article 101(1) TFEU. The reference seeks guidance on their classification within EU competition rules under Article 101(1) of TFEU. Background Booking.com BV runs an online hotel reservation platform. Up to 2015, its agreements contained wide price parity obligations that stopped hotels from advertising cheaper room rates via their own direct channels and any other outlets, including rival online travel agencies (OTAs). Thereafter, Booking.com moved to narrow price parity undertakings, which bar hotels from offering lower prices through their direct sales channels; the Federal Court of Justice of Germany nonetheless held these also restrict competition. Booking.com and other...

Antitrust Commission penalises Eurofield and Unanime Sport €172,000 for incomplete information in synthetic turf sector probe The Commission stated it has imposed fines totalling about €172,000 on Eurofield SAS (Eurofield) and Unanime Sport SAS (Unanime Sport), the ultimate parent of Eurofield at the time of the infringement, for submitting an incomplete response to an information request issued as part of its ongoing inquiry into a possible infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Background On 7 June 2023, the Commission revealed that it had carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the synthetic turf sector across several Member States. It explained that the inquiry concerns synthetic turf for sports use and noted its concerns that the inspected companies may have breached Article 101 TFEU. In the course of this investigation, the Commission also sent requests for information to the companies under investigation, including Eurofield...

Antitrust Commission launches Article 101 investigation in derivatives markets The Commission has opened a probe under Article 101 TFEU into possible coordination involving Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq Inc concerning the listing, trading and clearing of financial derivatives markets across the EEA (Case AT.40945)...

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-806/19 P and C-883/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment dated 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016, which found infringements and levied fines on three banks that did not settle, due to their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, largely confirming the Commission’s conclusion that HSBC Holdings plc took part in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Nonetheless, the General Court set aside the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc because the Commission provided ‘insufficient reasons’ for the methodology used to calculate that penalty...

This table outlines completed CMA, OFT and sectoral regulator investigations from 2013 under Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Only publicly disclosed cases are included. For ongoing behavioural matters, see UK behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For completed Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I cases, see UK behavioural investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I Competition Act—closed cases tracker. For instances where the CMA has pursued director disqualification, see UK competition director disqualifications—cases tracker. 2025 Gas transportation — Scotia Gas Networks; Ofgem. Issue: alleged abuse of dominance. Commitments accepted—02/12/2025 Consultation on commitments launched—09/09/2025 Investigation opened—08/03/2024 Vifor Pharma (abuse of dominance) — Vifor Pharma; CMA. Issue: alleged abuse of dominance by making misleading claims about a rival iron treatment. Commitments accepted—23/05/2025 Consultation on commitments launched—10/12/2024 Investigation opened—31/01/2024 2024 ...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the decision on 16 September 2015 to close the investigation; it is no longer being maintained or updated. For further detail, please see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I inquiry into the hotel online booking sector. The matter was reopened following the CAT’s judgment in the Skyscanner v CMA case. Latest developments On 20 August 2020, the CMA provided an update on its project tracking pricing behaviour by online travel agents, following the lapse of the 2015 commitments by Booking.com and Expedia not to apply ‘wide’ parity clauses in online hotel booking agreements. In summary, after the formal commitments expired on 1 July 2020, both companies stated they would continue to operate in line with those commitments going forward. Both companies have also confirmed that their commitments remain in force in the UK. The CMA will carry on working closely...

This Precedent presentation has been created as a training resource that you can use to offer an overview to junior competition lawyers, non-competition lawyers, or commercial colleagues on the application of the EU Vertical Agreements Block Exemption 2022/720 (EU VBER) to distribution agreements...