- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-228/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) TFEU — Card payment systems — Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees — Agreement restricting competition ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0228
62018CA0228
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
6.7.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 222/6
(Case C-228/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101(1) TFEU - Card payment systems - Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees - Agreement restricting competition ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’)
(2020/C 222/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal
Respondents: Budapest Bank Nyrt., ING Bank NV Magyarországi Fióktelepe, OTP Bank Nyrt., Kereskedelmi és Hitelbank Zrt., Magyar Külkereskedelmi Bank Zrt., ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt., Visa Europe Ltd, MasterCard Europe SA
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the same anticompetitive conduct from being regarded as having as both its object and its effect the restriction of competition, within the meaning of that provision.
2.Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an interbank agreement which fixes at the same amount the interchange fee payable, where a payment transaction by card takes place, to the banks issuing such cards offered by card payment services companies operating on the national market concerned cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.
(*) Language of the case: English.
OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.