Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/8

(Case C-345/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Application of analogous national legislation - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’ - Commercial lease agreements - Shopping centres - Right of the anchor tenant to prevent the lessor letting commercial premises to third parties))

(2016/C 038/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that a commercial lease agreement for the letting of a large shop or hypermarket located in a shopping centre contains a clause granting the lessee the right to oppose the letting by the lessor, in that centre, of commercial premises to other tenants, does not mean that the object of that agreement is to restrict competition within the meaning of that provision.

2.Commercial lease agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to be an integral part of an agreement having the ‘effect’ of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, from which it is found, after a thorough analysis of the economic and legal context in which the agreements occur and the specificities of the relevant market, that they make an appreciable contribution to the closing-off of that market. The extent of the contribution of each agreement to that closing-off effect depends, in particular, on the position of the contracting parties on that market and the duration of that agreement.

Language of the case: Latvian

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.