The Advocate General Bobek provides an analytical framework to assess the appropriateness of ‘by object’ qualifications while clarifying and consolidating the case-law on the dichotomy between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions (Budapest Bank)

Comment On 5 September 2019, Advocate General (‘AG’) Bobek delivered his Opinion in the Budapest Bank case following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Hungarian Supreme Court (‘HSC’). [1] AG Bobek advised on several matters such as the existence of an obligation for National Competition Authorities (‘NCAs’) to expressly indicate which type of collusion they condemn and whether the facilitating, accepting and implementing of an agreement amounts to a concerted practice. However, this Opinion is particularly interesting because of the clarification it brings to the analytical framework to assess whether a practice could be considered a ‘by object’ restriction. I. The Parties Six of the banks involved in the main proceedings intervened in Luxembourg: Budapest Bank Nyrt. (state

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Simon Troch, Daphné Van der Eycken, The Advocate General Bobek provides an analytical framework to assess the appropriateness of ‘by object’ qualifications while clarifying and consolidating the case-law on the dichotomy between ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ restrictions (Budapest Bank), 5 September 2019, e-Competitions Bulletin September 2019, Art. N° 92640

Visites 144

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues