Consten and Grundig are the precursor case of specific agreements and have laid the analytical basis for the review of these agreements. However, in a much more recent case, Allianz-Hungaria, the ECJ considered economic consequences when considering the purpose of an agreement.  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.  The European Court of Justice has found that agreements restrict competition as an object.  The court considered the economic and legal context of the agreement and some of the market effects of the agreement.  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.  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. The Court of Justice agreed with the Advocate General and found a concerted practice of conduct intended to harm competition.  The concerted practice is contrary to Article 101 because information has been shared with competitors; Competitors remained in the market; As a result, when they remained in the market, it was assumed that they were using the information to make their decisions, which reduced the uncertainty.
 The Court of Justice reiterated that the actual impact on the market was negligible in determining whether there was a concerted practice that would be detrimental to competition in the common market.  However, the analysis of concerted practices has changed with the Anic decision.  In Anic, Counsel General Cosmas stated that there could be concerted practices that contras section 85 by way of use, without examining the actual effects of concerted practice on the market.  He found that, since agreements may be concluded by effect or effect contrary to Article 85, there must also be concerted practices by effect or effect contrary to article 85.  In Anic, polypropylene producers set target prices for their products across Europe, held meetings to discuss strategies and had quotas.  General Counsel Cosmas found that there was a concerted practice in the polypropylene market as a result of the companies` participation in meetings where information was exchanged between competitors.  It did not matter if a company did not share information at the meeting; What was important was that the company participated in the meeting at which a participant exchanged information.  Companies have thus reduced independent market measures by exchanging information.  Market autonomy is essential for reasonable competition to flourish.  Market uncertainty cannot be replaced by security without effectively eliminating competition.  It can therefore be said that where the agreements fall within the examples cited in the treaty and in the case law, it is established that they are contrary to Article 101, paragraph 1.