Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others [Archived]

Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert
Practice notes

Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others [Archived]

Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert

Practice notes
imgtext

CASE 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ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 April 2020; it is no longer maintained.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

OutlineCase 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 developmentsOn 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
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Article 101 definition
What does Article 101 mean?

Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions of associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition and which affect trade between member States.

Popular documents