Exempting agreements

Where collective rather than individual action is deemed optimal, parties might agree restraints or obligations deemed necessary to protect an investment in relation to, for example, the development of a geographic market, a technology, a production plant or an industrial process or to increase the parties' purchasing power vis-à-vis a powerful supplier. More commonly, restraints may be required simply to facilitate day-to-day business activities such as distribution or supply/purchasing arrangements.

However, where such an agreement is considered to have a restrictive 'object' and/or shown to produce appreciably restrictive 'effects' within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, the agreement will be illegal unless the contracting parties can benefit from an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU—either by bringing the agreement within the safe harbour of a potentially applicable block exemption or by explicitly justifying the arrangement on 'efficiency' grounds.

See further, Individual exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU.

Block exemptions

Article 101(3) TFEU applies to categories of agreements by way of 'block exemption' regulations adopted by the European Commission (the Commission). The block exemption regulations establish ‘safe-harbour’ regimes whereby agreements will be considered legal and enforceable

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Competition News

UK Competition law—daily round-up (27/02/2026)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (1) Doug Gurr is confirmed as the new Chair of the CMA, and (2) the CMA publishes Growth and Investment Council Terms of Reference.

EU Competition law—daily round-up (27/02/2026)

A round-up of EU competition law developments, including (amongst other things) the latest EUMR developments.

Competition weekly highlights—26 February 2026

This week’s edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the CMA’s interim report in relation to its Getty Images/Shutterstock phase 2 investigation, (2) the government’s issuance of a pre-emptive action order following a PIIN in relation to DMGT/Telegraph Media Group, (3) the CMA’s response to DBT’s working paper on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, (4) the EU/UK signing an agreement to co-operate closely on competition matters, (5) the Business Secretary announcing that Doug Gurr has been selected as preferred candidate to remain as Chair of the CMA, (6) the CAT’s judgment on a strike-out application and expert evidence in relation to a collective damages action brought by Ad Tech against Google, and (7) a CAT ruling refusing permission to appeal in a claim alleging competition law breaches by Faculty of Advocates Services. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) publication by the Commission of a summary of consultation responses on the ongoing review of the FSR, (2) publication by the Commission of consultation responses received to the review of Regulation 1/2003, (3) the Commission launching a consultation on the draft new State aid General Block Exemption Regulation, (4) publication of the European Parliament’s resolution on the Commission’s 2024 Competition Policy report, and (5) the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action challenging the Commission’s refusal of access to DMA designation documents.

UK Competition law—daily round-up (26/02/2026)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including the (1) the Court of Appeal’s judgment refusing permission to appeal against CAT certification of Hammond and Stephan collection actions against Amazon, and (2) CAT’s judgment regarding Subsidiary Control Act challenge against Gambling Commission’s £70m grant to Camelot.