This chapter is dedicated to Article 101(1) TFEU balancing tools. It examines tools aimed at balancing competition with state or public interests, such as the state action defence, notion of undertakings, Article 106(2) TFEU exception for services of general economic interests, the exception for collective bargaining agreements between employers and employees, and the inherent restriction doctrine. The chapter also studies tools for balancing competition and commercial interests, such as the rule of reason, objectively necessary agreements, ancillary restraints, and the de minimis doctrine. The chapter shows that unlike most of the explicit-substantive balancing tools that are based on EU primary or secondary law and which were largely developed by the Commission, the wording of Article 101(1) TFEU does not explicitly refer to a balancing function. Rather, the balancing tools of Article 101(1) TFEU are predominantly derived from the CJEU’s case law. It reveals that the CJEU introduced those tools to counterbalance the Commission’s broad interpretation of what constitutes a restriction of competition falling within the ambit of Article 101(1) TFEU. The Court has held that agreements restricting the commercial freedom of parties might escape the prohibition of Article 101(1) TFEU if they are necessary for attaining social or efficiency-related goals.

This chapter is dedicated to Article 101(1) TFEU balancing tools. It examines tools aimed at balancing competition with state or public interests, such as the state action defence, notion of undertakings, Article 106(2) TFEU exception for services of general economic interests, the exception for collective bargaining agreements between employers and employees, and the inherent restriction doctrine. The chapter also studies tools for balancing competition and commercial interests, such as the rule of reason, objectively necessary agreements, ancillary restraints, and the de minimis doctrine. The chapter shows that unlike most of the explicit-substantive balancing tools that are based on EU primary or secondary law and which were largely developed by the Commission, the wording of Article 101(1) TFEU does not explicitly refer to a balancing function. Rather, the balancing tools of Article 101(1) TFEU are predominantly derived from the CJEU’s case law. It reveals that the CJEU introduced those tools to counterbalance the Commission’s broad interpretation of what constitutes a restriction of competition falling within the ambit of Article 101(1) TFEU. The Court has held that agreements restricting the commercial freedom of parties might escape the prohibition of Article 101(1) TFEU if they are necessary for attaining social or efficiency-related goals.

The imposition of effective cartel sanctions is shaped by the policy of and guidelines from enforcing authorities, such as the European Commission, as well as the Union Courts. The application of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines has been guided by the jurisprudence of the Union Courts. The Courts have in general upheld the fining methodology expressed in the guidelines and have clarified the way it should be applied in specific situations. The fact that the system of setting and reviewing EU competition fines was found lawful adds to the legitimacy of such fines and their enhanced deterrent effect. The aim of authorities and reviewing courts is to impose adequate and deterrent sanctions, while respecting the rights of defence of the undertakings.