July 25, 2014

National Competition Authorities in Europe Are Not Bound by the European Commission de Minimis Notice

On 13 December 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that national competition authorities (NCAs) can apply European competition rules, and fine companies for an infringement of EU rules, even in cases where the European Commission considers that Article 101(1) Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is not applicable. 

Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits anti-competitive agreements that have an appreciable effect on competition and trade in the European Union.  In 2001, the Commission published a de minimis notice (the notice), setting out guidance on the concept of appreciable effect.  According to the notice, the Commission holds the view that agreements between competitors that affect trade between Member States do not fall within the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU if the aggregate market share held by the parties to the agreement is less than 10 per cent of any of the markets affected by the agreement.  The threshold increases to 15 per cent where the parties are not actual or potential competitors.  These are considered generally to be safe-harbour thresholds for the application of Article 101(1) TFEU. 

EU competition rules are not only, however, applied by to the Commission; NCAs and courts of the Member States can also apply Article 101(1) TFEU.  The French Supreme Court referred a question under the preliminary ruling procedure to the CJEU, asking whether, when applying Article 101(1), the French Autorité de la Concurrence is bound by the thresholds of the notice (Expedia Inc v Autorité de la concurrence and Others C-226/11). 

The case involved an appeal against the €5m fine imposed by the French regulator.  The French regulator held that an agreement between SNCF and Expedia that created Agence VSC as an online travel agency for the sale of train tickets had as its object and effect the restriction of competition to the detriment of competitors in the market for leisure travel.  Expedia argued that the market shares of the parties to the agreement fell within the thresholds of the safe harbours set by the notice, making the agreement outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU.

In its judgment, the CJEU reiterated that the notice is binding only for the Commission.  In this regard, the Court noted that the Commission imposes a limit on the exercise of its own discretion through the guidance it publishes.  In order to adhere to the general principles of law—namely the principle of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations—it must not depart from its own guidance.  With respect to national courts and NCAs, however, the notice is only intended to provide non-binding guidance for the application of EU competition rules.  The de minimis thresholds may be taken into account by the NCAs to determine whether the infringement has an appreciable effect on competition but, owing to its non-binding nature, it is only one of the factors that may be considered

The judgment creates a degree of uncertainty in that, in applying the exact same EU provisions, the European Commission is bound by its own de minimis notice, whereas NCAs are not.  This means that agreements between parties with low market shares can be found in breach of the EU competition rules by the NCAs even if the Commission finds no such breach.  In a national context, companies cannot simply rely on the thresholds of the notice to exclude the application of EU competition rules to the agreements they enter into.  

This judgement suggests that the same reasoning would apply to other Commission guidance, which sits oddly with the harmonised approach to the application of EU competition law.     

Aiste Slezeviciute, a trainee solicitor in the Brussels office, also contributed to this article.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author


Wilko van Weert is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.  His practice focuses on EU competition, EU regulatory and EU trade law, with a particular emphasis on the interface between competition and intellectual property law.  This is reflected in his significant representation of clients in the media and broadcasting sector, as well as those in industries such as high-tech electronics, automotive, aviation, biotechnology, oil and paper.


About the Author


Philipp Werner is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.   His practice focuses on European and German competition law including State aid, merger control, cartels and abuse of dominance, and his clients include companies in the automotive, infrastructure, transport and health care sectors.

32 2 282 35 67

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.