CELEX: 62018CN0228
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-228/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others

201806150421954802018/C 231/162282018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180403131421Case C-228/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1310120180403EN0016131142Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others
   (Case C-228/18)2018/C 231/16Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court
   
   Kúria
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Defendant and appellant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal
   
      Applicants and respondents: Budapest Bank Nyrt., ING Bank NV Magyarországi Fióktelepe, OTP Bank Nyrt., Kereskedelmi és Hitelbank Zrt., Magyar Külkereskedelmi Bank Zrt., ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt., Visa Europe Ltd, MasterCard Europe SA
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the same conduct can infringe this provision both because the object of the conduct is anti-competitive and also because its effect is anti-competitive, with the two cases being treated as separate grounds in law?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the agreement at issue in the proceedings, which was entered into by Hungarian banks and which establishes, in respect of the two bank card companies, MasterCard and Visa, a unitary amount for the interchange fee payable to the issuing banks for the use of the cards of those two companies, constitutes a restriction of competition by object?
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the credit card companies can also be considered to be parties to an interbank agreement where they were not directly involved in defining the content of the agreement but facilitated its adoption and accepted and implemented it; or are these companies to be considered to have acted in concert with the banks that entered into the agreement?
         
      
            4.
         
         
            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the subject matter of the proceedings, for the purpose of finding an infringement of competition law, it is not necessary to differentiate between participation in the agreement and acting in concert with the banks that participated in the agreement?