<OrderedList><ListItem><ItemNumber>1.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the application of that provision to restrictions of competition pursuing a legitimate objective in the public interest, as identified by the Court in the judgments of 19 February 2002, <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Wouters and Others</Emphasis> (C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98), and of 18 July 2006, <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission</Emphasis> (C-519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492), is capable of applying to regulations adopted by a sports federation which, while addressing its members, also govern the use of the services of third-party undertakings not belonging to that federation, provided that those regulations:<UnorderedList Mark="Dash"><ItemContent>were adopted by that federation acting for that purpose as an undertaking or an association of undertakings and are capable of affecting trade between Member States;</ItemContent><ItemContent>cannot be classified as an agreement between undertakings or a decision by an association of undertakings the object of which is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition; and</ItemContent><ItemContent>pursue one or more legitimate objectives in the public interest which are not, in themselves, anticompetitive and are proportionate to the pursuit of that objective or those objectives, which means, first, that those regulations are appropriate for securing their attainment, second, that they do not go beyond what is necessary, in the sense that no less restrictive measure would make it possible to attain that objective or those objectives as effectively and, third, that they do not produce effects on competition that are disproportionate having regard to the public interest in attaining that objective or those objectives, in particular by eliminating all competition.</ItemContent></UnorderedList></ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>2.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the exception identified in the judgments of 19 February 2002, <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Wouters and Others</Emphasis> (C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98), and of 18 July 2006, <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission</Emphasis> (C-519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492), applies, the conditions relating thereto do not necessarily have to be assessed with regard to each of the provisions of the regulations at issue, but with regard to a set of provisions pursuing a distinct objective or producing a distinct effect.</ItemContent></ListItem></OrderedList>

“ROGON and Others”

期刊论文
发表日期：

2026年7月28日

查看全文

摘要

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the application of that provision to restrictions of competition pursuing a legitimate objective in the public interest, as identified by the Court in the judgments of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others (C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98), and of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission (C-519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492), is capable of applying to regulations adopted by a sports federation which, while addressing its members, also govern the use of the services of third-party undertakings not belonging to that federation, provided that those regulations:

were adopted by that federation acting for that purpose as an undertaking or an association of undertakings and are capable of affecting trade between Member States;

cannot be classified as an agreement between undertakings or a decision by an association of undertakings the object of which is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition; and

pursue one or more legitimate objectives in the public interest which are not, in themselves, anticompetitive and are proportionate to the pursuit of that objective or those objectives, which means, first, that those regulations are appropriate for securing their attainment, second, that they do not go beyond what is necessary, in the sense that no less restrictive measure would make it possible to attain that objective or those objectives as effectively and, third, that they do not produce effects on competition that are disproportionate having regard to the public interest in attaining that objective or those objectives, in particular by eliminating all competition.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the exception identified in the judgments of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others (C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98), and of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission (C-519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492), applies, the conditions relating thereto do not necessarily have to be assessed with regard to each of the provisions of the regulations at issue, but with regard to a set of provisions pursuing a distinct objective or producing a distinct effect.