News

Competition: in a case concerning the termination of payments to basketball players following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its assessment under competition law requirements, a reference was made to the judicial authority of the European Union to ensure a uniform and effective interpretation and application of European Union competition law provisions.

By a ruling of 30 April 2025, the Extended Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (the Court) suspended proceedings in a competition case and decided to refer a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice). The Court submitted three preliminary questions regarding the interpretation of European Union competition law provisions.

The case concerns a dispute initiated by the applicants – the Lithuanian Basketball League (LKL) and its member basketball clubs – seeking annulment of a decision by the Competition Council. On 13 March 2020, during an extraordinary meeting of the LKL board, the applicants decided to terminate the 2019–2020 “Betsafe-LKL” championship due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Competition Council found that, at the same meeting, the applicants also agreed not to pay salaries for basketball players for the remainder of the season. Taking this into account, the Competition Council concluded that the applicants had entered into a prohibited anti-competitive agreement, restricting mutual competition regarding the purchase price of basketball players’ services and fixing the price by agreeing to withhold the remaining payments. The Council determined that such an agreement violated Article 5 of the Law on Competition and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and imposed fines on the applicants.

The Court acknowledged that on 13 March 2020 the applicants had indeed agreed not to pay basketball players for the remainder of the season. However, the Extended Chamber raised questions regarding the assessment of this agreement and the relevance of the COVID-19 pandemic context under Article 101 TFEU. The first question relates to whether an agreement among basketball clubs, as employers, not to pay their employees constitutes a wage-fixing agreement comparable to a price-fixing arrangement for services, and whether such an agreement can be considered anti-competitive. The second question concerns whether the agreement qualifies as a “by object” restriction of competition, hence one inherently harmful to competition and therefore not requiring further proof of its anti-competitive intent or effects. In this regard, the Court noted that the agreement arose due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicants acted under uncertain conditions, following governmental restrictions on sporting activities. Given these circumstances, the Extended Chamber questioned whether the mere existence of the agreement, in this specific context, suffices to deem it inherently harmful. The third question seeks to determine whether the economic and legal context of the agreement – namely the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic – should influence the assessment of the agreement or the liability of the applicants.

Administrative Case No. eA-8-502/2025