Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 14 March 2013

Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt. and Others v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Application of similar national regulations — Jurisdiction of the Court — Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and car repairers relating to hourly repair charges — Charges paid depending on the number of insurance contracts concluded for the insurance company by those repairers in their capacity as brokers — Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’

Case C‑32/11


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
26/04/2013 Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2013:160
14/03/2013 Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2013:160
14/03/2013 Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2012:663
25/10/2012 Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
14/05/2011 Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

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

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.01 Reference to the Court of Justice
      3.04.01.03 Exclusive nature of the role of the national court in making the reference
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.02 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.02 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.01 Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
      4.08.01.01 Prohibition of agreements, decisions and concerted practices
        4.08.01.01.02 Restriction of competition
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.01 Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
      4.08.01.01 Prohibition of agreements, decisions and concerted practices
        4.08.01.01.02 Restriction of competition
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.01 Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
      4.08.01.01 Prohibition of agreements, decisions and concerted practices
        4.08.01.01.02 Restriction of competition


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

Opinion


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

HU - 1996. évi LVII. törvény a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és versenykorlátozás tilalmáról (loi nº LVII de 1996 sur l'interdiction des pratiques commerciales déloyales et restrictives), 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