Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others [Archived]
Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert
Practice notesCase C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others [Archived]
Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert
Practice notesCASE HUB
ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 April 2020; it is no longer maintained.
See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases.
Case facts
Outline | Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others—a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification around the distinction between object and effect restrictions under Article 101(1) TFEU. |
Latest developments | On 2 April 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. The Court of Justice confirmed that the same conduct can be held to amount to both an object and by effect restriction on competition under Article 101(1) TFEU. In relation to the question as to whether the Hungarian multilateral interchange fee (MIF) agreement constituted a restriction by object, this is for the referring court to determine. Furthermore, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 101(1) TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that a MIF agreement which fixes the commission when a card payment transaction is carried out for the banks issuing such cards cannot |
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it,
sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.