In Hungarian, verbs have a polypersonal concordance, which means that they correspond to more than one of the arguments of the verb: not only its subject, but also its object (accusative). There is a difference between the case where a particular object is present and the case where the object is indeterminate or if there is no object at all. (Adverbs have no influence on the form of the verb.) Examples: Szeretek (I love someone or something indeterminate), szeretem (I love him, she, or her, or her, specifically), szeretlek (I love you); szeret (he loves me, me, you, someone or something indeterminate), szereti (he loves him, her or her especially). Of course, names or pronouns can specify the exact object. In short, there is agreement between a verb and the person and the number of its subject and the specificity of its object (which often refers more or less precisely to the person). The T-Mobile case involved five mobile operators in the Netherlands, from which a company exchanges information on its commissions to merchants. [50] The meeting was a unique event and the disclosure of the information had no concrete impact on the decision-making of other companies. [51] General Counsel Kokott, however, found that the exchange of information by an air carrier at a meeting was an appropriate practice, even though no other company had disclosed information. [52] It explained that there was no need to assess the effects of concerted practice on the market. [53] For a concerted practice of breaching section 81, the crucial question is whether market uncertainty has been removed because it limits competition. [54] Companies must work independently and, when they receive information and remain in the market, they are presumed to have used the information in their decision-making and have ceased to act independently.

[55] Consten and Grundig are the precursor case of specific agreements and have established the analytical basis for the review of such agreements. However, in a much more recent case, Allianz-Hungaria, the ECJ considered economic consequences when considering the purpose of an agreement. [19] In this case, these are automobile insurance companies that enter into agreements with car dealers on the hourly costs paid by the insurer for repairs. [20] The European Court of Justice has found that agreements restrict competition as an object. [21] The court considered the economic and legal context of the agreement and some of the market effects of the agreement. [22] The ECJ conducted an analysis of objects in accordance with Section 101 and concluded that the purpose of the agreement, which inspired its potential effects, was detrimental to competition. [23] The content of the ECJ analysis appears to be inconsistent with Consten, since, in this case, the ECJ found that the effects of the agreement were not necessary to determine the purpose of the contract.