Case C- 306/20 Visma Enterprise [Archived]

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published by a LexisNexis Competition expert
Practice notes

Case C- 306/20 Visma Enterprise [Archived]

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

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ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 November 2021; it is no longer maintained.

See further, timeline.

Case facts

OutlineCase C- 306/20 Visma Enterprise—a national reference from Latvia as to whether, amongst other things, an arrangement between a producer and a number of distributors (under which the distributor who was first to register a potential transaction with the producer enjoys Priority in progressing the sale process with the end user concerned for 6 months from that registration, unless the user objects) be regarded as an agreement within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
Latest developmentsOn 19 November 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it suggested that the referring court needs to look at the terms, objective and context of an agreement to establish if it is clear breach of Article 101 TFEU. It the company’s distribution agreements are not a by object breach, then the referring court should assess whether they have the effect of harming competition.
PartiesApplicant:•
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Priority definition
What does Priority mean?

The ranking of security interests ie the order in which each of the secured creditors can claim on the secured property in an enforcement or insolvency scenario. A deed of priority or intercreditor deed can vary the priority a security interest enjoys by virtue of general law.

Read more readmore

Popular documents

Case C- 122/16 British Airways v Commission (Air cargo cartel) [Archived]

Case C- 122/16 British Airways v Commission (Air cargo cartel) [Archived]CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/11/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant casesCase factsARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2017; it is

Case C- 179/16 F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others [Archived]

Case C- 179/16 F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others [Archived]CASE HUBARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 January 2018; it is no longer maintained.See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant casesCase facts<

Google (Android) (AT.40099) [Archived]

Google (Android) (AT.40099) [Archived]CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 604/18)ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 July 2018; it is no longer maintained.See further timeline, commentary, and related cases.Case

Case T- 136/19 Bulgarian Energy Holding and Others v Commission [Archived]

Case T- 136/19 Bulgarian Energy Holding and Others v Commission [Archived]CASE HUBNOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 14/24ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 October 2023; it is no longer maintained.See further, timeline.Case