CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 123/16 Orange Polska v Commission–appeal to the Court of Justice of the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action for the annulment of the European Commission decision finding an abuse of dominance through a refusal to supply rival operators with wholesale broadband internet access. Latest development On 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in Orange Polska v Commission, an appeal by the European Commission against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 486/11 that had dismissed actions by the appellant for annulment of the Commission’s infringement decision of 22 June 2011 finding an abuse of dominance through a refusal to supply rival operators with wholesale broadband Internet access (Case AT.39525). The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding in particular that the Commission did not err in law when calculating the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 93/18 which partially upheld an action for annulment against the Commission's decision that the ISU’s rules imposing severe penalties on athletes for participating in unauthorised-ISU competitions constituted a breach of Article 101 TFEU. Latest development On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming that the rules of the ISU are unlawful. However, in contrast to the General Court, the Court of Justice upheld the cross-appeal and, consequently, set aside the General Court’s 2020 judgment in so far as it concerned the arbitration rules. Parties Applicant:• International Skating Union (ISU)Defendant: • European Commission The ISU is the sole international sports federation recognised by the International Olympic Committee for the purpose of managing and administering figure skating and speed skating. The ISU also carries out

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 430/18 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to grant grandfathering rights over slots made available as part of the commitments accepted in Case COMP/M.6607—US Airways/American Airlines. Outcome On 16 March 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that: (i) the General Court did not err in interpreting ‘appropriate use’ as meaning an absence of ‘misuse’; (ii) the General Court did not err in its assessment of the slot utilisation level that corresponded to an absence of "misuse", finding that the commitments did not impose a higher level of utilisation than the industry norm; (ii) Delta was not obliged to make full use of the slots allocated; and (iv) the General Court has

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 128/19 Azienda Sanitaria Provincial di Cantania—a national reference from Italy seeking clarification to whether, amongst other things, a measure set out in an Italian law (concerning payments from local health authorities in Sicily to owners of animals slaughtered as a result of being affected by infectious diseases) constitutes unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 20 May 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that Italian compensation measures for farmers that were forced to slaughter animals affected by infectious disease and for the veterinary surgeons involved in the process need to be notified and reviewed by the European Commission, unless an exemption applies under Regulation No 702/2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors in rural areas in the application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU or Regulation No

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 January 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline National reference from Romania seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 101 TFEU can be interpreted as meaning that notaries in Lithuania, when carrying out activities related concerning certain clarifications adopted by the Chamber of Notaries, are undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 18 January 2024, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it answered the questions raised as follows: (i) notaries must be regarded as 'undertakings' under Article 101(1) TFEU where they carry out various notary activities unrelated to the exercise of public powers; (ii) rules standardising the way in which notaries calculate the amount of fees charged in respect of the performance of certain of their activities, adopted by a professional organisation, constitute decisions of an association of undertakings under Article 101(1) TFEU; (iii) decisions of an association of undertakings

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to accept commitments from Paramount Pictures in the investigation into Cross-border access to pay-TV (Case AT.40023).. Latest development On 9 December 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, in which it allowed the appeal and annulled the Commission’s decision to accept commitments from Paramount Pictures. The Court of Justice essentially found that the Commission failed to properly consider the pre-existing rights of a third party (Canal +) and this amounted to a violation of the proportionality principle. Parties Applicant: Groupe Canal + (Canal +) is a French film and television studio and distributor. It is owned and controlled by Vivendi. Defendant: European Commission Market(s) Pay-TV broadcasting of films Background The Commission’s

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Italian Consiglio di Stato to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify (amongst other things and insofar as it relates to competition law issues) whether a provision in a professional body's code of conduct (stipulating minimum fees for professionals’ services) falls foul of Article 101(1) TFEU. On 18 July 2013, the Court of Justice ruled that rules such as those laid down in the code of conduct (concerning the profession of geologist in Italy) constitute a decision by an 'association of undertakings' within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU but that it is for the national court to assess, in the light of the overall context in which the code of conduct produces its effect, whether that effect is produced

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 May 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 100/17 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.33926) concerning certain measures of financial support granted in favour of Duferco group companies. Latest developments On 7 May 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The Court of Justice held that the General Court had (i) correctly applied the relevant case law in holding that it was for BTB and DPH to establish that the Commission had committed a manifest error in its assessment of the facts that was capable of justifying the annulment of the contested decision; and (ii) applied the correct principles in concluding that the allegations of BTB Holdings Investments SA and Duferco Participation Holding SA were not sufficient to find that the Commission's

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 515/18 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 June 2018 which rejected under Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004 a complaint brought by Fakro Sp. z o.o. against VKR Holding A/S for an alleged abuse of a dominant position (Case AT.39451). Outcome On 30 June 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) tha the General Court made no error in concluding that the Commission did not commit a manifest error by assessing the EU interest in further investigation of the case as low and rejecting Fakro's complaint on grounds of low priority. Parties Applicant:• Fakro sp. z.o.o. (Fakro): Fakro is a Polish manufacturer of roof window and accessories.Defendant:• European

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 160/19 Comune di Milano v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 167/13 which dismissed an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision which found, among other things, that capital injections carried out by SEA Handling’s state-owned shareholders gave it an undue economic advantage over its competitors (SA.21420). Latest development On 10 December 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the General Court had not erred in finding the: (i) existence of a transfer of State resources and concluding that this was imputable to the State; and (ii) private economy investor principle test did not apply in the present case. Parties Appellant:• Comune di MilanoDefendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Airport

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 October 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain seeking clarification on whether Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of ‘relevant evidence’ refers exclusively to existing documents in the control of the defendant or a third party or, in contrast, can Article 5(1) also include documents that the party to which the request for information is addressed may be required to create ex novo, by aggregating or classifying information, knowledge or data in its possession. Latest development On 10 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it (agreeing with the Advocate General) ruled that Article 5(1) must be interpreted as meaning that the production of “relevant evidence” also covers documents that the party to which the request for information is addressed may be required to create ex novo, by aggregating or classifying information, knowledge or

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the German Landgericht Düsseldorf to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether a holder of a standard-essential patent (SEP) who has declared to a standardisation body that it is willing to grant any third party a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, abuses his dominant market position under Article 102 TFEU if he brings an action for an injunction against a patent infringer although the infringer has declared that he is willing to negotiate concerning such a licence. Clarification is also sought on the issue of how an infringing licensee demonstrates such 'willingness', in particular whether Article 102 TFEU lays down specific qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to the 'willingness to negotiate' where other potential requirements of the competition law defence (to the injunction) have been made