The task for this and the next seminar is to consider two aspects of Article 101. Here we look at the Commission’s attempt to codify the parameters of Article 101(1) in 2004 by a soft law document (different in nature from the Guidance Paper on Article 102) and the links between it and the case law of the Court. What emerges from the case law is some confused discussion on the nature of restrictions by object.
We have seen that in the context of Article 102 the shift to an effects-based assessment has been problematic in part because it isn’t clear what effects we’re looking at and what presumptions arise in finding those effects. It might however be interesting to discuss why the arguments in the Article 101 context are on the notion of object.
Communication from the Commission – Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty  OJ C101/97 paragraphs 1-31 (available here)
Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis)  OJ C368/13(here)
Over this summer the Commission embarked on a consultation with a view to redrafting this document, if you are interested, see here.
Joined Cases C-501/06 P etc. GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission  ECR I-9291 paragraphs 40-67 only
Case C-209/07 S Competition Authority v BIDS  I-8637
Case C-226/11 Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others, judgment of 13 December 2012
Case C-32/11 Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt. and Others v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal, judgment of 14 March 2013
Stefan ‘European Competition Soft Law to Court: A Matter of Hard Principles?’ (2008) 14(6) European Law Journal 753.