CASE HUB (date of judgment—16/07/2015) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 July 2015; it is no longer maintained.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 Romanian Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether, in relation to a practice of allocating customers, the number of customers affected by the arrangement is relevant in determining whether the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition is triggered. On 16 July 2015, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted in a way that, where there exists an agreement to allocate customers (which constitute, by its very nature, a restriction of competition 'by object'), the number of allocated clients affected is not relevant in respect of the fulfilment of the condition regarding a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. The reference provides the opportunity to clarify certain concepts (and the method of analysis) regarding a restriction

CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/09/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—14/09/2017 Outline National reference from the Latvian Augstākā tiesa (Latvian Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify the conditions under which the imposition of high prices by a dominant undertaking (within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU) might be construed as 'excessive' and therefore infringe point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU. Outcome On 14 September 2017, the Court of Justice ruled, amongst other things, that an abuse based on ‘excessive pricing’ may be established where a difference between a scrutinised price and an appropriately chosen market comparator is ‘both significant and persistent’ on the facts. In terms of an appropriate market comparator for carrying out such an assessment, the Court of Justice confirms that a limited neighbouring (Member States) market comparator may be acceptable as long as it and its pricing indices are selected in accordance with ‘objective, appropriate

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 January 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts col style="width: 23%;"> Outline National reference from the Consiglio di Stato (Italian Council of State) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking clarification regarding the interplay between the regulatory framework for the placing of drugs on the market and EU competition law. In particular, the Court of Justice was requested to clarify to what extent, and on what basis, the legal uncertainty regarding the lawfulness of prescribing and marketing a drug with a view to its ‘off-label’ use and the scientific risks associated with such use come into play in the application of Article 101 TFEU. Outcome On 23 January 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, and ruled that an agreement between two pharmaceutical companies to restrict ‘off-label’ use of certain pharmaceutical products, through the manipulation of the perceived risks of one drug over other

CASE HUB (date of judgment—06/07/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 6 June 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission's re-adopted decision of 27 June 2012 (amending the Commission’s original decision of 24 January 2007) finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement and re-imposing a fine of €56.79m on Toshiba for its alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of gas insulated switchgear (‘Switchgear cartel'). On 6 July 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed in its entirety the appeal and therefore confirmed the General Court judgment and, in turn, the revised fine imposed by the Commission under the re-adopted decision. Amongst other things, the Court of Justice found that: (1) the validity of the 2006 Statement of Objections was not affected by the annulment of the initial (2007) decision (and that, on this basis, the Commission was not required

CASE HUB (date of judgment—22/10/2015) (ARCHIVE 22/10/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by consultancy firm AC-Treuhand against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 11 November 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a fine of €348,000 on AC-Treuhand for its alleged role as cartel facilitator in a European-wide cartel for the supply of tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers ('Heat stabilisers cartel').On 22 October, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and upheld the General Court judgment (and, consequently, confirmed the underlying Commission infringement decision insofar as it relates to AC-Treuhand). This case focuses on the issue of potential liability under Article 101 TFEU for intermediaries and consultants for their role in facilitating the cartel activity of others. The main interest is to understand whether Article 101(1) TFEU is applicable to such conduct

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 November 2011; it is no longer maintained. Case facts

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position of the date of the judgment on 23 November 2023; it is no longer maintained See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 238/20 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision in SA.56812—Swedish loan guarantee scheme to support airlines under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the coronavirus outbreak. Latest developments On 23 November 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it rejected all of Ryanair’s grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal. Parties Appellant:• Ryanair DAC (Ryanair)Respondent:• The European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 3 April 2020, Sweden notified the Commission about a SEK 5bn loan guarantee scheme to support airlines affected by the coronavirus outbreak under the Temporary Framework.The support, which is in the form of State guarantees on loans, is accessible to all airlines which hold a Swedish commercial aviation licence at least as of 1 January 2020, except those

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 732/16 upholding an appeal of the Commission’s decision of 4 July 2016 finding aid to certain three Valencia football clubs amounted to unlawful State aid (SA.36387). Latest developments On 9 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety and the General Court’s judgment should be upheld.. In particular, it held that by adopting the 2008 Guarantee Notice, the Commission imposed on itself the obligation to verify whether there was a corresponding guarantee premium benchmark available on the financial markets and, failing that, whether there was a market price for a similar non-guaranteed loan, before resorting to the reference rate (which the Commission did not do). Also, the Court of Justice found that the General Court

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 June 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain a national reference from Spain seeking clarification as to how rulings by competition authorities, declaring some of the applicant’s supply contracts illegal, are binding on national judges. Latest developments On 29 June 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it answered the questions referred as follows—Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that: (i) the finding that a vertical agreement fixing minimum resale prices entails a ‘restriction of competition by object’ may only be made after having determined that the agreement presents a sufficient degree of harm to competition, taking into account the nature of its terms, the objectives that it seeks to attain and all of the factors that characterise the economic and legal context of which it forms part; (ii) there is an ‘agreement’ where a supplier imposes on its distributors minimum resale

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 212/19 Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo—a national reference from France seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, the Commission’s decision of 14/07/2004 should be interpreted as declaring that only the reductions in social security contributions are incompatible with the common market, on the ground that the reduction in employees’ contributions do not benefit the undertakings and therefore cannot fall within the scope of Article 107 TFEU. Latest developments On 17 September 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2004 was invalid and therefore it was not necessary to answer the two questions put forward by the Council of State. Parties Applicants:• Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Ministry of the Environment, Energy and the Sea)Respondent:• Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo (CSM) Market Fishing. Background

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Belgian Hof van Beroep te Brussel to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether a national measure regulating the price of tobacco products on a domestic market (in particular, requiring retailers not to price below the certain prices) is compatible, amongst other things, with Article 101 TFEU (read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU) and 'free movement' principles (under Article 34 TFEU). On 21 September 2016, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 34 TFEU and Article 101 TFEU (the latter read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU) do not preclude a national provision prohibiting price promotions on manufactured tobacco which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price on the revenue stamp affixed by the manufacturer

CASE HUB (date of judgment—23/04/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 April 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by LG Display and LG Display Taiwan against the General Court judgment upholding (as it related to the substance) the Commission decision of 8 December 2010 finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €215m on LG Display and LG Display Taiwan (jointly and severally but reduced to €210m by the General Court) for their alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels ('LCD cartel'). On 23 April 2015, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety thereby confirming the finding of infringement and the fine as reduced by the General Court to the sum of €210m. This matter focuses on (amongst other things) the interaction between the Fining Guidelines and the Leniency Notice and the treatment of captive sales in the