The three cases allow us to think about how one might justify anticompetitive agreements. There are two methods: one is to apply Article 101(3), the other is to somehow find no breach of Article 101(1). The latter approach is confused, not least by the three judgments below. The paper is not directly related to the cases, but I think it helps flesh out how to think about these issues in a new way.
Communication from the Commission – Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty  OJ C101/97 paragraphs 32-end, focus on the general principles (available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52004XC0427%2807%29:EN:NOT)
Case C-519/04 Meca-Medina v Commission  ECR I-6991
Case C-349/09 Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence and Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi  ECR I-9419 (please read the AG’s Opinion)
Case C-1/12 Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência, judgment of 28 February 2013
Farrell and Katz ‘The Economics of Welfare Standards in Antitrust’ (2006) 2(2) Competition Policy International (this is easily available on line if you Google the title, or try this link https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/file/view/4359). Ignore the complex maths, just focus on the intuitions.
This OFT document is interesting, look at the first 16 pages or so. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/events/Article101(3)-discussionnote.pdf
Presently the Dutch Competition Authority is looking at a policy of exempting agreements that benefit the environment, see https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/publication/11733/Opportunities-for-collaborations-with-regard-to-sustainable-development/
Joined Cases C-501/06 P etc. GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission  ECR I-9291, focus on the analysis of Article 101(3).