CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 228/18 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others—a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification around the distinction between object and effect restrictions under Article 101(1) TFEU. Latest developments On 2 April 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. The Court of Justice confirmed that the same conduct can be held to amount to both an object and by effect restriction on competition under Article 101(1) TFEU. In relation to the question as to whether the Hungarian multilateral interchange fee (MIF) agreement constituted a restriction by object, this is for the referring court to determine. Furthermore, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 101(1) TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that a MIF agreement which fixes the commission when a card payment transaction is carried out for the banks issuing such cards

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 6 December 2017 ; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, seeking to clarify the legality under Article 101 TFEU of bans on selling via online platforms in the context of selective distribution. In particular, the German court requires judicial direction as to whether a ‘qualitative’ selective distribution permits online sales restrictions where the objective sought is maintenance of a luxury brand image. The reference arose in the context of national proceedings in Germany concerning a dispute between Coty Deutschland GmbH and Parfümerie Akzente GmbH with Coty Germany issuing proceedings in order to prohibit Akzente from distributing Coty Germany products via the online platform ‘amazon.de’. Outcome On 6 December 2017, the Court of Justice ruled, amongst other things, that a supplier of luxury

CASE HUB (date of judgment—09/07/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by InnoLux Corp (formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp) 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 €300m on InnoLux (though reduced slightly to €288m by the General Court) for its alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels ('LCD cartel').On 9 July 2015, the Court of Justice dismissed in its entirety Innolux's appeal of the General Court judgment, thus upholding (as it related to the substance) the Commission decision and confirming the €288m fine imposed on InnoLux. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Justice confirmed (despite the contrary views of Advocate General Wathelet) that when cartelised products have been incorporated into finished products by a vertically-integrated

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by FLSmidth against the judgment of the General Court dismissing, for the most part, FLSmidth's action for partial annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005 that imposed a fine on FLSmidth and its subsidiary, FLS Plast, for their participation in a cartel for the supply of industrial plastic bags in the EEA ('Industrial bags cartel').This case focuses on the imputability of a subsidiary's' illegal behaviour to its parent, including in circumstances where (for periods) the parent did not have a 100% shareholding in the infringing entity. Parties Appellant: FLSmidth & Co A/S Other party: European Commission FLSmidth & Co. A/S (FLSmidth) is a Danish company and parent company of a group of companies operating in the engineering, mining and construction sectors. One of those companies is FLS Plast A/S (Plast), which is itself the former parent company of Trioplast Wittenheim

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 238/20 SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’ v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde—national references from Latvia seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, the de minimis limit of €30,000 set out in Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 717/2014 is applicable in the context of damages awarded by a Member State for loss caused to aquaculture in an area by protected birds. Latest developments On 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that compensation granted by a Member State for aquaculture damage caused by birds protected under Directive 2009/147 constitutes an advantage which may constitute State aid if other conditions are fulfilled. Furthermore, a Member State may apply the de minimis ceiling set out in Regulation 717/2014 to payments granted for damage caused to aquaculture by protected wild birds. Parties Applicant:• SIA Sātiņi-S (Sātiņi-S)Defendant:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 423/14 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.34572) which declared that numerous guarantees given to Larko amounted to illegal State aid. Latest developments On 26 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it partially upheld the appeal. Parties Appellant:• Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Larko)Respondent:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Larko is a large undertaking specialising in the extraction and processing of laterite ore, the extraction of lignite and the production of ferronickel and its by-products.Larko was established in 1989 as a new entity following the liquidation of Hellenic Mining and Metallurgical SA. At the time of the relevant facts, Larko had three shareholders: (1) the Greek State (which held 55.2% of its shares through the intermediary of Hellenic Republic Asset Development

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline National reference from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether the transformation of a solely controlled undertaking into a jointly controlled joint venture can amount to a 'concentration' within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation where the resulting joint venture is not 'full-function' in character (ie lacks the requisite independence from its parents). Central to this question (and its implications in terms of when transactions need to notification to the European Commission) is interpreting and understanding the interaction between Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the EU Merger Regulation. Latest development On 7 September 2017, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that the change of control over a joint venture only falls within

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 April 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 20 April 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment holding that: (i) in respect of Article 101 TFEU (as implemented by Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and read in conjunction with the principle of effectiveness), an infringement of competition law found in a final decision of a national competition authority (NCA) must be regarded as established by the claimant (in an action for damages or declaration of nullity) until proven otherwise (the burden of proof shifting to the defendant), provided that the nature of the alleged infringement and its material, personal, temporal and territorial scope coincide with those of the infringement established by the NCA’s decision; and

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 1 February 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 691/14 which partially upheld an action for annulment of the Commission's decision fining Scania into an alleged cartel in the market for the medium duty trucks (AT.39824). Outcome On 1 February 2024, 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) Commission had not breached the principles of impartiality by using the same case team for the settlement discussions and ongoing infringement decision against non-settling parties; (ii) it is well-established that an infringement of Article 101 can result from an isolated act or series of acts, and single continuous infringement can be established where various actions, with similar intention, form part of an overall plan; and (iii) the Commission’s power to impose

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 616/18 dismissing an appeal against the Commission’s decision to accept binding commitments from Gazprom under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The commitments accepted from Gazprom were intended to address competition concerns that Gazprom has abused its dominant position in Central and Eastern European gas markets. Outcome On 6 June 2024, Advocate General Rantos issued his opinion proposing that the Court of Justice should dismiss the appeal. In particular, Advocate General Rantos held (amongst other things) that the General Court did not err in refusing to treat the application of the principle of energy solidarity by the Commission as analogous to the imposition of positive obligations on the latter going beyond the scope of the complaints directed against Gazprom. Parties Applicant: Orlen S.A., formerly Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen S.A., formerly Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Orlen)• Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Commission’s investigation Between 2011 and 2015, the Commission took several measures in order to investigate

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from the Netherlands seeking clarification as to whether wide and narrow parity clauses constitute an ancillary restriction in the context of Article 101(1) TFEU. Latest developments On 6 June 2024, Advocate General Collins issued his opinion proposing that Article 101(1) TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that wide and narrow price parity clauses that an online travel agent (OTA) seeks to impose on hotels as part of its terms of business are not ancillary restraints, unless they are indispensable and proportionate to ensuring the OTA’s economic viability, which is for the referring court to determine without prejudice to its analysis under Article 101(3) TFEU. Parties Applicants:• Booking.com BV, Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbHDefendants: • 25hours Hotel Company Berlin GmbH and Others Markets Online travel agents. Background to reference Background Booking.com BV, an undertaking incorporated in 1996 in the Netherlands, operates an online hotel booking platform under the same name. Booking.com acts as an intermediary between hotel

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 January 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court annulling the Commission’s decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition of TNT by UPS. Latest development On 16 January 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the Commission’s appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant: United Parcel Service Inc (UPS)Defendant: European Commission UPS, a US-based company and TNT Express NV (TNT), a Netherlands-based company both provide small package delivery services, involving integrated air and ground delivery networks (an 'integrated' service). In the EEA, UPS and TNT are present on the international express small package delivery markets—services involving a guarantee by the service provider to deliver small packages to another country in one day. These services are provided by international air and land distribution networks which rely on the integration