EU antitrust - Article 101 TFEU

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

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:

  1. •

    directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions

  2. •

    limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment

  3. •

    share markets or sources of supply

  4. •

    apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage, or

  5. •

    make the conclusion of contracts subject to tie-in of supplementary obligations unconnected with the subject matter of the contract

See Practice Note: Article 101(1) TFEU—the prohibition on restrictive agreements.

Where an agreement is determined by the Commission, national competition authorities (NCAs) or courts to have a restrictive ‘object’ or 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 contracting parties can

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest EU Law News

SRB publishes operational guidance on bank resolvability testing framework

The Single Resolution Board (SRB) has published its final operational guidance on Resolvability Testing for Banks, following a public consultation involving the banking associations and individual institutions. The guidance outlines a structured framework for banks to assess their crisis readiness through a Multi-Annual Testing Programme, aligned with the revised European Banking Authority Guidelines and the Single Resolution Mechanism Vision 2028. It details expectations for testing methods, governance, environments, and deliverables, applying proportionality based on institutional complexity. In response to stakeholder feedback, the SRB clarified and simplified requirements, including the use of production environments, streamlined templates, and flexible scheduling. The guidance aims to ensure that resolution strategies are operationally viable, with banks, national authorities, and the SRB jointly advancing preparedness for potential resolution scenarios.

Industry Groups Urge EU to Broaden Access to Electronic Instructions for Everyday Medical Devices

MedTech Europe, along with Eurom and EuromContact, has called on the European Union to broaden the scope of electronic instructions for use (eIFUs) so that they can apply to certain medical devices intended for non-professional users. The trade groups argue that eIFUs are suitable in cases where a healthcare professional provides initial guidance at the first use of a device and where repeated use allows individuals to gain confidence and proficiency. They highlight products such as contact lenses, urinary catheters and diabetes management devices as prime examples that would benefit from this approach. According to the groups, expanding the use of eIFUs would not only improve accessibility of health information but also help to reduce the environmental footprint of these medical products.

MedTech Europe leads industry call for EU to provide medical device regulatory relief by early 2026

MedTech Europe, together with 35 national associations, has urged the European Commission to take swift action on regulatory challenges affecting the medical device and diagnostic sectors. While EU officials are already collecting evidence to support future reforms of the medical device and in vitro diagnostic regulations, which are meant to simplify and improve efficiency, the signatories of the open letter argue that immediate relief is also essential. They call for a combination of short-term measures alongside longer-term legislative reforms. In particular, the letter asks for an implementing act to standardize the work of notified bodies, pilot projects for regulatory pathways covering orphan, pediatric, and breakthrough devices, and a targeted delay of re-certification requirements for certain products. According to MedTech Europe, harmonizing rules for notified bodies would help reduce duplication, speed up assessments, and ease the overall regulatory burden. The proposed postponement of re-certification deadlines is seen as necessary to avoid bottlenecks that could disrupt the supply of devices ahead of 2028. Looking further ahead, the associations want amendments to both MDR and IVDR that reflect the specific needs of each sector, alongside the creation of a single governance structure to oversee notified bodies and the CE-marking system, which they consider vital to the future of European medical technology regulation.

Industry groups call for EU Critical Medicines Act to address supply chain vulnerabilities

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), alongside Medicines for Europe and the European Fine Chemicals Group (EFCG), has called on the EU to legislate a Critical Medicines Act to address systemic shortages of medicines and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). At a European Parliament event hosted by MEPs Tomislav Sokol (EPP) and Vlad Vasile Voiculescu (RE), industry representatives highlighted the impact of COVID-19, geopolitical tensions, inflation and reliance on a limited number of suppliers. They emphasised the need for strategic autonomy in healthcare and a harmonised EU approach to strengthen supply chains and manufacturing capacity. Speakers also noted that pricing pressures have contributed to supply chain fragility and called for alignment between EU-level intentions and national implementation.

View EU Law by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of