Reports of Cases

not yet published (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU, Article 101 : paragraphs 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 26
• TFEU, Article 102 : paragraphs 1, 6, 11, 16, 20 - 22, 24, 27, 30, 32 - 35, 37, 41, 45, 49, 52, 62
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A94 : paragraph 18
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -27/76 -N265 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 -N89 : paragraph 46
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 -N57 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -26/84 -N20 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -26/84 -N21 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -89/85 -N126 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N18 : paragraph 40
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N19 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -549/10 -N21 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -23/14 -N57 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/14 -N135 : paragraphs 28, 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/14 -N138 : paragraph 47
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/14 -N139 : paragraphs 48, 51
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/14 -N140 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -349/17 -N49 : paragraph 18
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -165/19 -N110 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -680/20 -N19 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -680/20 -N48 : paragraph 29
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N52 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N53 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N61 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N62 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N68 : paragraph 36
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N69 : paragraph 39
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N72 : paragraph 40
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N73 : paragraph 37
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N78 : paragraph 57
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -318/21 -N33 : paragraph 19

Operative part

• Interprets : TFEU, Article 102

Opinion

• TFEU, Article 101 : points 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 33, 40, 54, 55, 87
  
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : points 26, 34
  
• TFEU, Article 102 : points 2 - 4, 7, 14, 19, 22, 24, 28, 40, 47, 48, 55, 56, 60, 61, 64, 67, 77, 79, 83, 86, 87
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A23P2 : point 29
  
• Regulation 330/2010 -A04 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A94 : point 18
  
• Regulation 720/2022 -A04 : point 33
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52006XC0901(01) -PT28 : point 29
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52006XC0901(01) -PT30 : point 29
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52009XC0224(01) -PT37 : point 78
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52022XC0630(01) -PT30 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N129 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N130 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N131 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N132 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N133 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N134 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N135 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N136 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N137 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N138 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N139 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N140 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 -N141 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -22/71 : point 26
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/73 -N41 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 -N480 : point 40
  
• General Court - Judgment T -68/89 -N357 : point 26
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -266/93 -N16 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -73/95 -N54 : point 26
  
• General Court - Judgment T -66/99 -N125 : point 39
  
• General Court - Judgment T -66/99 -N126 : point 39
  
• General Court - Judgment T -66/99 -N127 : point 39
  
• General Court - Judgment T -66/99 -N128 : point 39
  
• General Court - Judgment T -325/01 -N118 : point 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -217/05 -N43 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -217/05 -N44 : point 44
  
• General Court - Judgment T -112/05 -N64 : point 37
  
• General Court - Judgment T -321/05 -N818 : point 48
  
• General Court - Judgment T -321/05 -N819 : point 48
  
• General Court - Judgment T -321/05 -N820 : point 48
  
• General Court - Judgment T -321/05 -N821 : point 48
  
• General Court - Judgment T -321/05 -N822 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -97/08 -N61 : point 37
  
• General Court - Judgment T -286/09 -N79 : point 68
  
• General Court - Judgment T -286/09 : point 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -457/10 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -457/10 -N202 : point 83
  
• General Court - Judgment T -418/10 -N153 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/11 -N102 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -179/12 -N55 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -542/14 -N48 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -542/14 -N53 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -23/14 -N65 : point 83
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/14 -N135 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -542/14 -N20 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -542/14 -N27 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -542/14 -N33 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -516/15 -N47 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -349/17 -N49 : point 18
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -595/18 -N40 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N23 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N24 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N25 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N26 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N27 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N28 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N29 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N30 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -882/19 -N31 : point 3
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -152/19 -N73 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -694/19 -N47 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -694/19 -N55 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -882/19 -N41 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N146 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N147 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N148 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N149 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N150 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N151 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -377/20 -N152 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -377/20 -N107 : point 28
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 15/12/2020

Date of the Opinion

• 14/07/2022

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

19/01/2023

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Information not available

Name of the parties

Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Idot, Laurence: Concurrance - Abus de position dominante et clauses d'exclusivité, Europe 2023, n° 3 mars, comm. 105 (FR)
2. Berlemont, Jérémy: Abus de position dominante : les précisions de la Cour de justice concernant les clauses d’exclusivité figurant dans des contrats de distribution, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence 2023, nº 125, p. 3-5 (FR)
3. Angerbauer, Timo: Vertriebshändler: Zurechnung zum Hersteller bei missbräuchlichen Ausschließlichkeitsklauseln : EuGH, Urteil vom 19.01.2023 : C-680/20, Unilever Italia : Anmerkung, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2023 p. 152 (DE)
4. Wardhaugh, Bruce: European Union: anti-competitive practices - judgment, European Competition Law Review 2023, Volume 44, Issue 6, N127-N128 (EN)
5. Maggiolino, Mariateresa: When an ice cream case provides antitrust experts with food for thought: Unilever Italia, Common Market Law Review 2023, Volume 60, Issue 5, p. 1433-1452 (EN)
6. Wal, Gerard van der ; Rieff, Joep: Unilever/AGCM : HvJ EU 19 januari 2023, C-680/20 : prejudiciële vragen van de Consiglio di Stato (Italië) inzake artikel 102 VWEU, Markt & Mededinging 2023 p. 107-111 (NL)
7. Idot, Laurence: Un arrêt de principe sur les clauses d’exclusivité émanant d’entreprises en position dominante, Revue des contrats 2023, n° 2 , p. 72-74 (FR)
8. Idot, Laurence: L'article 102 TFUE toujours au coeur de l'actualité, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2023, n° 4, p. 747-754 (FR)
9. Mongouachon, Claire: Critères d’imputabilité : La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne précise les critères d’imputabilité au producteur dominant d’agissements commis par l’intermédiaire de ses distributeurs et clarifie la portée du test du concurrent aussi efficace en matière de clauses d’exclusivité (Unilever Italia), Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2023, nº 2, p. 76-78 (FR)
10. Kersting, Christian: Case note on European Court of Justice judgment of 19 January 2023 Unilever (C-680/20) EU:C:2023:33, European Competition Law Review 2024, Volume 45, Issue 1, p. 41-42 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Consiglio di Stato - Italy

Subject-matter

• Competition
  
• - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
  

Provisions of national law referred to

legge 287/1990

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  
• Reference for a preliminary ruling : dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility
  

Formation of the Court

cinquième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Regan

Advocate General

Rantos

Language(s) of the Case

• Italian
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French