Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A23 : paragraphs 27, 28
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : paragraphs 1, 16, 21, 23, 31 - 51
• TFEU, Article 267 : paragraphs 19, 29
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/64 : paragraph 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/65 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/77 : paragraph 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -243/83 : paragraph 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -297/88 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -28/95 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/98 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -1/99 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -94/04 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -217/05 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/06 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/06 : paragraphs 34, 36, 37
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/07 : paragraph 35
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -260/07 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 : paragraphs 34, 35, 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -352/08 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -403/08 : paragraphs 34, 36
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -439/09 : paragraphs 34, 36, 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -482/10 : paragraphs 19, 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -603/10 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -25/11 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -180/11 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -226/11 : paragraphs 35, 36

Operative part

• Interprets : TFEU, Article 101 -P1

Opinion

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 41 -P2LC : point 35
  
• TFEU, Article 101 : points 35, 36, 41, 42, 45, 48
  
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : points 1 - 100
  
• TFEU, Article 101 -P3 : point 65
  
• TFEU, Article 102 : points 42, 45, 48
  
• TFEU, Article 296 -L2 : point 35
  
• Regulation 1/2003 : point 45
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A03 : points 4, 39, 43, 46
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A03P1 : points 5, 42 - 44
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A03P2 : points 6, 43, 44
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A03P3 : point 7
  
• Regulation 330/2010 : points 72, 79
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A01P1LB : point 72
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A01P1LD : point 77
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A02 : point 69
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A03 : point 69
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A05 : point 69
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A05P1LA : point 78
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52004XC0427(03) -PT6 : point 43
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52004XC0427(06) -PT8 : point 43
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52004XC0427(07) -PT21 : points 65, 83
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52010XC0519(04) -PT133 : point 78
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/64 : points 64, 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 : point 90
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/77 : point 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -172/80 : point 89
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/82 : points 66, 67, 82
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -243/83 : point 74
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -166/84 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -166/84 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -89/85 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -297/88 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -297/88 : points 24, 40, 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -234/89 : points 80, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/92 : point 90
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -346/93 : points 26, 27, 48
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -28/95 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -28/95 : points 25, 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/97 : points 25, 40
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -1/99 : points 25, 26
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -267/99 : points 25, 26
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -306/99 : points 25, 26
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -1/99 : points 25, 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/99 : points 80, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -238/99 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/99 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -306/99 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -3/04 : points 25, 40, 41
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -217/05 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -217/05 : points 40, 41
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -280/06 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/06 : points 80, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/06 : points 27, 40, 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/06 : points 66, 67
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -101/07 : point 99
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -200/07 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/07 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -260/07 : points 80, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -186/07 : point 26
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -439/09 : point 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -482/10 : points 28, 32, 34, 36, 48
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -583/10 : point 27
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 21/01/2011

Date of the Opinion

• 25/10/2012

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

14/03/2013

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 145 from 14.05.2011, p.4

Judgment: OJ C 141 from 18.05.2013, p.3

Name of the parties

Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Mok, M.R.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2013 nº 363 (NL)
2. Harrison, Dan: The Allianz Hungária case - The ECJ's judgment could have ugly consequences, Competition Law Insight 2013 Vol. 12 Issue 6 p.10-12 (EN)
3. Graham, Cosmo: Methods for Determining whether an Agreement Restricts Competition: Comment on Allianz Hungária, European Law Review 2013 p.542-551 (EN)
4. Idot, Laurence: Accords verticaux et objet anticoncurrentiel. La Cour revient sur la notion d'objet anticoncurrentiel dans une affaire originale où les accords litigieux affectent deux marchés distincts, Europe 2013 Mai Comm. nº 5 p.24-25 (FR)
5. X: Des accords verticaux peuvent être considérés comme une restriction de concurrence « par objet », Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2013 nº 83 p.41 (FR)
6. Chobanova, Svetlana: The notions of jurisdiction by renvoi and restriction by object: Does the 'Europeanisation' of competition laws ensure clarity in interpretation?, Evropeyski praven pregled 2013 nº 6 p.128-144 (EN)
7. Idot, Laurence: La Cour de justice revient une nouvelle fois sur la notion d'« objet anticoncurrentiel », Revue des contrats 2013 p.955-959 (FR)
8. Kovács, Christian: Eine misslungene kartellrechtliche Premiere in Ungarn, Wirtschaft und Recht in Osteuropa 2013 p.327-332 (DE)
9. Robin, Catherine: L’objet anticoncurrentiel de la rémunération versée aux réparateurs automobiles par les compagnies d’assurance, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2013 nº 36 p.30-31 (FR)
10. Nagy, Csongor István: The Distinction between Anti-competitive Object and Effect after Allianz: The End of Coherence in Competition Analysis?, World Competition 2013 nº 4 p.541-564 (EN)
11. Hojnik, Janja: Sporazumi o cenah popravil zavarovanih vozil v luči konkurenčnega prava EU, Davčno-finančna praksa : davki, finance, zavarovalnistvo 2013 n°4 p.25-28 (SL)
12. Dorkó, Dalma: Az első előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelem a GVH eljrásaival kapcsolatban - Az Allianz-ügy, Versenytükör 2013 2. szám p.73-81 (HU)
13. Oosterhuis, G.: Allianz: een beetje vaag en heel ongelukkig, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2014 p.25-32 (NL)
14. Nowag, Julian ; Ioannidou, Maria: Can two wrongs make a right? Reconsidering minimum resale price maintenance in the light of Allianz Hungária, European Competition Journal 2015 p.340-366 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Legfelsőbb Bíróság (Cour suprême) - Hungary

Subject-matter

• Competition
  

Provisions of national law referred to

1996. évi LVII. törvény a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és a versenykorlátozás tilalmáról, art. 11, Paragraph 1

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ilešič

Advocate General

Cruz Villalón

Language(s) of the Case

• Hungarian
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• Spanish