Reports of Cases

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

Subject-matter

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2012 in Case T-491/07 CB v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/D1/38606 - Groupement des cartes bancaires ‘CB’) – Errors of law in the application of the concepts of restriction of competition by object and by effect – Infringement of the principles of proportionality and of legal certainty

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : paragraph 42
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 -P1 : paragraphs 40, 44, 47 - 94
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 : paragraph 42
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 47 : paragraph 43
• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A58L1 : paragraph 41
• TFEU, Article 256 : paragraph 41
• TFEU, Article 263 : paragraph 44
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/65 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -123/83 : paragraph 51
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -42/84 : paragraph 44
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -234/89 : paragraph 79
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -344/98 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/06 : paragraph 46
• General Court - Judgment T -491/07 : paragraphs 1 - 94
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -386/10 : paragraphs 43 - 46
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -628/10 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/11 : paragraphs 49, 50, 52 - 54, 79
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -73/11 : paragraph 46
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/11 : paragraphs 44 - 46
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -67/13 : paragraphs 76, 81

Operative part

• Annuls : General Court - Judgment T -491/07

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 -P1 : points 24 - 71, 109, 115, 116, 122, 123, 138, 157, 159, 169, 170
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 -P3 : point 123
  
• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A36 : point 156
  
• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A53L1 : point 156
  
• TFEU, Article 101 -P1 : point 50
  
• TFEU, Article 256 : point 76
  
• TEU, Article 5 -P4 : point 164
  
• Decision 2001/782 : points 135, 143, 144
  
• Decision 2001/914 : points 135, 143, 144
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A07P1 : point 164
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52004XC0427(07) : point 55
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -56/64 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/64 : points 39, 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/65 : points 38, 61, 158
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/77 : points 39, 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/82 : point 117
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -29/83 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -243/83 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -161/84 : point 125
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -306/96 : point 43
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -309/99 : points 44, 100
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 : point 112
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -418/01 : point 130
  
• General Court - Judgment T -168/01 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -551/03 : points 41, 109, 117
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -501/06 : points 48, 61, 157
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/07 : points 21, 38, 39, 61, 66 - 72, 116, 117, 119, 135, 145, 158
  
• General Court - Judgment T -491/07 : points 1 - 174
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -8/08 : point 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/08 : points 39, 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -403/08 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -260/09 : point 112
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -272/09 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -439/09 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -389/10 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -628/10 : point 76
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -32/11 : points 54, 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/11 : points 50, 61, 108
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -287/11 : point 112
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 08/02/2013

Date of the Opinion

• 27/03/2014

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

11/09/2014

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 409 from 17.11.2014, p.8

Application: OJ C 114 from 20.04.2013, p.24

Name of the parties

CB v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Von Köckritz, Christian: Kartellrecht: Bezweckte Wettbewerbsbeschränkung – CB, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2014 p.907-908 (DE)
2. Heinisch, Oliver: The object of the exercise - A look at the ECJ's landmark Groupement des Cartes Bancaires decision, Competition Law Insight 2014 Vol. 13 Issue 11 p.16-17 (EN)
3. Giraud, Adrien: Exégèse de l'arrêt Groupement des Cartes Bancaires, Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2014 nº 98 p.43-48 (FR)
4. Clifton, Michael-James ; Francis, Andrew: Back to the Future: A Narrower Interpretation of «by Object» Restrictions. A Postscript from London: What Has Cartes Bancaires Got to Do with Land Agreements Potentially within Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 TFEU?, European Law Reporter 2014 p.302-312 (EN)
5. Idot, Laurence: Notion de restriction de concurence par objet, Europe 2014 Novembre nº 11 p.37-38 (FR)
6. Cardoso Pereira, João: Groupement des cartes bancaires : Reshaping the Object Box, Revista de concorrência e regulação 2014 p.265-279 (EN)
7. Murray, Grant: In search of the obvious: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires and "By O0734bject" infringements under EU competition law, European Competition Law Review 2015 Vol.36 p.47-51 (EN)
8. Wolf, Christoph: Bezweckte Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen nach dem Urteil „Groupement des cartes bancaires“, Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 2015 p.78-85 (DE)
9. Giraud, Adrien: Exégèse de l'arrêt Groupement des Cartes Bancaires , Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2015 nº 42 p.26-31 (FR)
10. Robin, Catherine: Sévère remise en cause de l'appréciation du Tribunal de la restriction de concurrence par « objet », Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2015 nº 42 p.36 (FR)
11. Lettl, Tobias: Bezwecken einer Wettbewerbsbeschränkung nach Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV, § 1 GWB am Beispiel von Tarifmaßnahmen zwischen Banken zu einem Kartenzahlungssystem – zugleich Besprechung von EuGH, Urt. vom 11.9.2014, C-67/13 P - CB/Kommission = WM 2015, 368 –, Wertpapier-Mitteilungen 2015 p.1037-1043 (DE)
12. Tannebaum, Sina: The Concept of the Restriction of Competition ‘By Object’ and Article 101(1) TFEU, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2015 p.138-148 (EN)
13. Ruiz Calzado, Xavier ; Scordamaglia-Tousis, Andreas: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires v Commission: Shedding Light on What is not a ‘by object’ Restriction of Competition , Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2015 Vol. 6 nº 7 p.495-498 (EN)
14. Andersson, Helene: EU-domstolens dom i Cartes Bancaires-målet - Konkurrensbegränsande syfte eller effekt - vari ligger egentligen skillnaden?, Europarättslig tidskrift 2015 Nr 2 p.371-378 (SV)
15. Chobanova, Svetlana: The notion of «restriction of competition by object», Европейски правен преглед 2015 nº 11 p.79-98 (BG)
16. Nyeső, Anita: Versenykorlátozó cél megítélése az Európai Unió Bírósága Cartes Bancaires-ügyben hozott ítélete tükrében, Versenytükör 2015 2. szám p.106-113 (HU)
17. Prieto, Catherine: XII. Ententes, abus de position dominante et concentrations - Cour de justice, 3e ch., 11 septembre 2014, Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB), aff. C‑67/13 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2204, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2014. Décisions et commentaires (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2015, p. 509-512 (FR)
18. Schwarz, Daniel: Immoveable objects - The evolution of object restrictions after the Cartes Bancaires case, Competition Law Insight 2016 Vol. 15 Issue 1 p.14-15 (EN)
19. Alvin Sng, Yi Heng: The distinction between "Object" and "Effect" in EU competition law and concerns after Groupement des cartes bancaires, European Competition Law Review 2016 p.179-185 (EN)
20. Brankin, Sean-Paul: The substantive standard behind the object/effect distinction post-Cartes Bancaires, European Competition Law Review 2016 p.376-383 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

• Competition
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Actions for annulment
  
• Appeals : application granted
  

Formation of the Court

Troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ó Caoimh

Advocate General

Wahl

Language(s) of the Case

• French
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French