The prohibition on restrictive agreements

Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices between two or more undertakings (or associations of undertakings) which may affect trade between EU Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition within the internal market. In particular, the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition focuses on arrangements which:

•
directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions,
•
limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment,
•
share markets or sources of supply,
•
apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage, or
•
make the conclusion of contracts subject to tie-in of supplementary obligations unconnected with the subject matter of the contract.

See further: The prohibition on restrictive agreements.

Where an agreement is determined by either the European Commission (Commission), national competition authorities (NCAs), or the EU courts to have a restrictive ‘object’ or is shown to produce appreciably restrictive effects within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, the agreement will be illegal under Article 101(2) TFEU unless the

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.