Filter database
All countries
Albania Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czechia Germany Estonia Spain Finland France Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Latvia North Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Slovakia
Include records with no known date
Notion of undertaking De minimis agreement Art. 101 exemptions Relevant market definition Dominance assessment Art. 102 justification EU trade effect EU law primacy General jurisdiction issues Internal jurisdiction issues Plaintiff standing issues Defendant standing issues Applicable law issues Administrative case link Prescription/statute of limitation Case management power Collective action ECN-courts cooperation EC decision effects NCA decision effects FCA decision effects Double jeopardy Authority’s procedural faults NRA decision effects Liability presumptions Evidence measures Experts involvement Evidence admissibility Illegal evidence
All legal bases
Art. 101 TFEU and national equivalent Art. 102 TFEU and national equivalent Both arts. 101 and 102 and the national equivalents Only the national prohibition of anti-competitive agreements Only the national dominance abuse prohibition Both national prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance Abuse of economic dependence or relative market power Unfair competition National law on breach of monopolist's obligation to enter into a contract Not indicated
All conduct types
Horizontal restrictions Vertical restrictions Both horizontal and vertical restrictions Exploitative abuse Exclusionary abuse Both exploitative and exclusionary Horizontal restrictions and exploitative abuse Vertical restrictions and exploitative abuse Both horizontal and vertical restrictions and exploitative abuse Horizontal restrictions and exclusionary abuse Vertical restrictions and exclusionary abuse Both horizontal and vertical restrictions and exclusionary abuse Horizontal restrictions and both exploitative and exclusionary abuse Vertical restrictions and both exploitative and exclusionary abuse Horizontal and vertical restrictions and both exploitative and exclusionary abuse
All conduct types
Horizontal restrictions Vertical restrictions Both horizontal and vertical restrictions Exploitative abuse Exclusionary abuse Both exploitative and exclusionary Horizontal restrictions and exploitative abuse Vertical restrictions and exploitative abuse Both horizontal and vertical restrictions and exploitative abuse Horizontal restrictions and exclusionary abuse Vertical restrictions and exclusionary abuse Both horizontal and vertical restrictions and exclusionary abuse Horizontal restrictions and both exploitative and exclusionary abuse Vertical restrictions and both exploitative and exclusionary abuse Horizontal and vertical restrictions and both exploitative and exclusionary abuse
All agreement types
Anticompetitive agreement Decision of association of undertakings Concerted practice
All objects or effects
All or some of the restrictions were classified as by-object (including if they also had the effect) All of the restrictions were classified as by-effect All of the restrictions were classified as having the object and effect or the object or effect without indicating which
Was the de minimis doctrine considered?
De minimis doctrine considered
De minimis doctrine NOT considered
Were Art. 101(3) TFEU issues considered
Art. 101(3) TFEU issues considered
Art. 101(3) TFEU issues NOT considered
Was the relevant market defined?
Relevant market defined
Relevant market NOT defined
Not applicable
Was market dominance assessed?
Market dominance assessed
Market dominance NOT assessed
All abuse types
Boycotting Buyer power Discriminatory conditions Excessive pricing SEP injunctions Not applicable Other Predatory pricing Prevention of parallel trade Relationship with abuse of economic dependence Fidelity rebates Refusal to deal/supply/license Self-preferencing Sham litigation Margin squeeze Tying or bundling Unfair trading terms
Were objective justifications or efficiency defenses assessed?
Objective justifications/efficiency defenses assessed
Objective justifications/efficiency defenses NOT assessed
Objective justifications/efficiency defenses NOT APPLICABLE
All types of judicial act
Judgment Order Opinion Preliminary injunction Third-party proceedings Ruling Criminal sentence
All economic sectors
Accounting services Automotive Banking and finance Chemicals Cleaning services Construction Consumer goods Copyright management Drinks and beverages E-commerce Energy Event and exhibition services Food Funeral services Gas stations Insurance Internet domain services Labour Legal and judicial services Life sciences Media Medical services Meteorological services Milk and dairy Mining Paper Pharmacies Postal Public procurement Real estate Security Ski resorts Software Sport Standard essential patents Steel Supermarkets Telecom Timber Tobacco Transport Waste management Waterworks
All enforcement domains
Public enforcement Private enforcement Criminal enforcement Other
All types of legal action
Interim proceeding/appeal on interim measures Appeal/review of competition authority decision Follow-on actions for damages Stand-alone action Hybrid actions Other non-compensatory actions
Case linked or not linked to a CJEU preliminary ruling
Case linked to a CJEU preliminary ruling
Case not linked to a CJEU preliminary ruling
All winning parties
Plaintiff/claimant/appellant Defendant Claim/appeal withdrawn by the parties Claim/appeal accepted partially or only with respect to some of the parties Other
