Court of Justice 5 September 2019, C-228/18 (Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others.)

Also known as

In Case C‑228/18, Advocate General Bobek considered that the same undertaking conduct may infringe Article 101(1) TFEU by having both the object and the effect of restricting competition, and that a competition authority is not required to categorize conduct strictly as either an agreement or a concerted practice provided adequate proof is adduced. He proposed that determining whether a multilateral interchange fee agreement constitutes a restriction of competition 'by object' requires the referring national court to examine its content, objectives, and legal and economic context, including verifying whether any prima facie plausible procompetitive rationale exists. Furthermore, he took the view that credit card companies that did not directly determine the content of an interbank agreement, but facilitated its adoption, accepted it, and implemented it, may be held liable for an infringement under Article 101(1) TFEU.AI