# Articles 101 & 102 TFEU Explained: EU Competition Rules
URL: https://eu-now.com/blog/articles-101-102-tfeu-competition-rules-explained
Published: 2026-07-11 · Updated: 2026-08-27
Category: Guides
Tags: TFEU, Article 101, Article 102, competition, EU Knowledge, EPSO
Cartels under Article 101, abuse of dominance under Article 102 — the two pillars of EU competition law and the distinctions the EPSO EU Knowledge test probes.
## Key takeaways
- Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements, decisions of associations and concerted practices that restrict competition and may affect trade between Member States — the anti-cartel rule
- Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position — being dominant is legal; abusing dominance is not
- Article 101(2) makes prohibited agreements automatically void; 101(3) provides an exemption for agreements whose efficiencies outweigh the harm
- The Commission enforces both articles directly and can fine undertakings — the enforcement powers behind the EU's most famous tech and cartel cases
When the EU fines a tech giant or dismantles a cartel, the legal machinery is two treaty articles that fit on a single page: **Article 101** (agreements that restrict competition) and **Article 102** (abuse of dominance). Together they are EU competition law's load-bearing walls — and a reliable pairing in the [EU Knowledge test](/test/eu_knowledge), because their parallel structure makes swapped-property distractors almost write themselves.

This piece extends our TFEU series — see [Article 45 (free movement of workers)](/blog/article-45-tfeu-free-movement-workers-explained), [Article 258 (infringement)](/blog/article-258-tfeu-infringement-procedure-explained) and [Article 288 (legal acts)](/blog/article-288-tfeu-legal-acts-explained).

## Article 101 — the anti-cartel rule

The consolidated text (OJ C 202) prohibits as incompatible with the internal market "all **agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices** which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their **object or effect** the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition".

Three structural points earn exam marks. First, the *three forms* of collusion — bilateral agreements, decisions of trade associations, and concerted practices (coordination without a formal agreement). Second, the *object or effect* alternative: a price-fixing cartel is prohibited by its object, no market analysis needed. Third, the cross-border filter: the practice must be capable of affecting **trade between Member States** — purely local restrictions belong to national law.

The illustrative list is quotable: fixing prices or trading conditions; limiting production, markets, technical development or investment; sharing markets or supply sources; discriminating between equivalent transactions; tying supplementary obligations unrelated to the contract.

**The two companion paragraphs.** Article 101(2): prohibited agreements are "**automatically void**" — a civil-law consequence, immediate and judge-independent. Article 101(3): the escape valve — the prohibition may be declared inapplicable where the agreement produces efficiencies (better production or distribution, technical or economic progress), consumers get **a fair share** of the benefit, and the restrictions are indispensable and do not eliminate competition. The block-exemption regulations that pepper EU business law all hang from this paragraph.

## Article 102 — abuse of dominance

The mirror provision: "Any **abuse** by one or more undertakings of a **dominant position** within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited... in so far as it may affect trade between Member States." Its example list runs parallel to 101's: unfair purchase or selling prices; limiting production, markets or technical development **to the prejudice of consumers**; discriminatory conditions; tying.

The doctrinal heart — and the single most tested proposition in this corner of the syllabus — is what the article does *not* prohibit: **dominance itself**. Growing large by competing well is lawful; the article intervenes only when a dominant undertaking *abuses* that position. Any exam statement reading "Article 102 prohibits dominant positions" is false by design.

## How the two articles divide the world

| | Article 101 | Article 102 |
|---|---|---|
| **Targets** | Collusion **between** undertakings | Unilateral conduct of a **dominant** undertaking |
| **Requires** | Agreement / decision / concerted practice | Dominance + abuse |
| **Sanction logic** | Agreement automatically void (101(2)) + fines | Conduct prohibited + fines |
| **Exemption** | Yes — 101(3) efficiency conditions | No equivalent paragraph |

Enforcement is shared machinery: the **Commission** investigates and fines (its competition arm is the reason "Brussels" is a verb in business journalism), national authorities and courts apply the same articles, and Commission decisions face review before the EU Courts under [Article 263](/blog/article-263-tfeu-action-annulment-explained). Competition rules for the internal market are also the textbook example of an **exclusive Union competence** — a favourite crossover question with the competences syllabus.

## What the questions in our bank actually test

If you learn one sentence from these two articles, learn Article 101(2): agreements or decisions prohibited under 101(1) are **automatically void**. In our own EU Knowledge bank it is not merely common — it is the answer. Of the **20 active questions** built on Articles 101 and 102, **11 have "automatically void" as the substance of the correct answer**, in one phrasing or another: "They are automatically void", "It is automatically void from the moment of its conclusion", "automatically void pursuant to Article 101(2) TFEU".

Three consequences worth internalising, because the distractors are built from their opposites:

- **Void, not voidable.** Nothing needs to be annulled, challenged or declared. The nullity operates by force of the Treaty itself, from the moment the agreement is concluded.
- **No decision required.** A distractor that makes nullity depend on a Commission decision, a national court judgment or a notification is wrong on the mechanism, however plausible it sounds procedurally.
- **101(3) is an exception to the prohibition, not a cure for nullity.** An agreement that meets the four cumulative conditions of 101(3) is not caught by 101(1) in the first place; it is not a void agreement that gets rescued afterwards.

Article 102 is examined far less often in the bank, and when it is, it is on the distinction the article's own wording forces: **dominance is not prohibited, abuse is**, and there is no equivalent of the 101(3) exemption to fall back on.

As with the rest of this series, these counts describe **our** question bank, built from the consolidated treaty text — not EPSO's, which is not published.

## The exam patterns

**The dominance trap** — prohibiting the position instead of the abuse. **The article swap** — assigning cartels to 102 or unilateral abuse to 101; anchor: *101 = several undertakings colluding, 102 = one undertaking abusing*. **The void detail** — "an agreement contrary to 101 remains valid until annulled": false, automatically void. **The exemption transplant** — applying 101(3)'s efficiency defence to Article 102, which has none.

Drill the pair against [free weekly EU Knowledge questions](/test/eu_knowledge), and slot competition law into the wider map with the [EPSO Preparation 2026 complete guide](/blog/epso-preparation-guide-2026).
## FAQ
### What does Article 101 TFEU prohibit?
All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the internal market. The article lists examples: price fixing, limiting production or markets, market sharing, dissimilar conditions for equivalent transactions, and tying unrelated obligations to contracts.
### What counts as abuse under Article 102 TFEU?
Article 102 prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or a substantial part of it, in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Its examples: imposing unfair prices or trading conditions, limiting production, markets or technical development to consumers' prejudice, discriminating between equivalent transactions, and tying. The key doctrinal point: dominance itself is lawful — the article punishes abusive conduct, not size.
### What happens to an agreement that violates Article 101?
Article 101(2) declares prohibited agreements or decisions 'automatically void' — unenforceable from the start, no ruling required to make them so. Separately, Article 101(3) can declare the prohibition inapplicable where an agreement improves production or distribution or promotes technical or economic progress, gives consumers a fair share of the benefit, and imposes no unnecessary or competition-eliminating restrictions.
### Who enforces EU competition law?
The European Commission — in practice its competition directorate — investigates and sanctions infringements directly, with the power to impose substantial fines on undertakings, alongside national competition authorities and courts applying the same articles. Enforcement decisions are reviewable before the EU Courts under Article 263 TFEU. Competition is also the classic example of an exclusive Union competence for the rules needed for the internal market.
## Official sources
- EUR-Lex — Consolidated version of the TFEU (OJ C 202, 7.6.2016): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016E%2FTXT
- EU Careers — EPSO testing (official): https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/selection-procedure/epso-tests

## This article in other languages
- French: https://eu-now.com/fr/blog/articles-101-102-tfeu-competition-rules-explained/llms.txt
- German: https://eu-now.com/de/blog/articles-101-102-tfeu-competition-rules-explained/llms.txt
- Spanish: https://eu-now.com/es/blog/articles-101-102-tfeu-competition-rules-explained/llms.txt
- Italian: https://eu-now.com/it/blog/articles-101-102-tfeu-competition-rules-explained/llms.txt

Source of record: https://eu-now.com/blog/articles-101-102-tfeu-competition-rules-explained — published by EU-now (eu-now.com), which is not EPSO and not affiliated with the European Commission.