CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain seeking clarification regarding the temporal scope of certain provisions of Directive 2014/104 (the 2014 Directive) in relation to an action for damages by RM which, although lodged after the 2014 Directive and the relevant national transposition provisions entered into force (ie December 2014 and May 2017 respectively), concerns competition law infringements that ended before both the 2014 Directive and the national legislation entered into force (ie 1997 to 2011). Latest developments On 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment holding that: (i) Article 10 of the 2014 Directive (relating to limitation periods) is substantive in nature and for which the retroactive application of the transposing provisions is excluded under the 2014 Directive; (ii) Article 17(1) of the 2014 Directive (relating to the quantification of harm) is procedural in nature and for which the application of

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 June 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Guillermo Cañas against the judgment of the General Court dismissing his action for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 October 2009 which rejected his complaint (on grounds of insufficient Community interest) regarding an alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, Association of Tennis Professionals Tour Inc and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS). On 20 June 2013, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety. This case focuses on the issue of an applicant for annulment of a Commission decision having (and maintaining) an 'interest' in the outcome of judicial proceedings. Parties Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (Mr Cañas) Other parties: European Commission• World Anti-Doping Agency• Association of Tennis Professionals Tour Inc (ATP)  Cañas is an Argentinian and formerly a professional tennis player (active at the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 274/14 Banco de Santander—a national reference from Spain seeking clarification on whether provisions for tax amortisation of financial goodwill comply with EU State aid rules. Latest developments On 21 January 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it concluded that the questions referred were inadmissible on the basis that the TEAC was not ‘a court of tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU. Parties Banco de Santander (Santander) Market Tax amortisation of financial goodwill. Background to reference The case principally concerns the interpretation of Commission Decision 2011/5 EC of 28 October 2009, which dealt with the State aid aspect of a special tax scheme providing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill following the acquisition of foreign shareholdings as applied to Spain (the Commission’s 2009 decision). The preliminary reference arose in the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 March 2013,; it is

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s preliminary judgment of 24 February 2021 in Case T- 161/18 which dismissed the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility in relation to the Commission’s decision of 4 July 2017 which approved Italy’s plan to support the recapitalisation of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena as compatible with the State aid rules (SA.47677). Latest developments On 31 January 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it disagreed with Advocate General Rantos and with the General Court by concluding that the measures referred to in the Commission's decision were not imposed or rendered binding by the Commission in that decision, but constitute purely national measures notified by the Italy , under Article 108(3) TFEU under its own responsibility, which were taken into account by the Commission as a factual element in assessing whether the State aid in

CASE HUB (date of judgment—19/03/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 19 March 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Dole against the General Court judgment upholding the Commission decision of 15 October 2008 finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €45.6m on Dole for its alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of fresh bananas to the northern European region ('Bananas cartel'). On 19 March 2015, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety. This matter focuses on (amongst other things) issues related to the rights of defence, the calculation of fines and whether an exchange of information (in the form of pre-pricing communications between the producers) should be legally characterised as a 'by object' restriction. Parties Appellants: • Dole Food Company Inc (Dole) • Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co (Dole Fruit)Other party: European Commission The Dole group is the world's largest producer of fresh

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by the European Commission against the General Court judgment which annulled, insofar as it applied to Aalberts Industries NV and two of its subsidiaries, the Commission's decision and the fines imposed in respect of a cartel in the European market for copper and copper alloy fittings operated between 1998 and 2004. Aalbert and two subsidiaries lodged a cross appeal in the event the Court of Justice granted the Commission's appeal. The case focuses primarily on the issue of a 'Single continuous infringement' and, in particular, the evidential requirements that need to be met by the Commission in order for one to be established. Parties Appellant: • European Commission Other parties: • Aalberts Industries NV ('Aalberts')• Comap SA ('Comap' and formerly Aquatis France SAS)• Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co KG ('Simplex') Aalberts is the parent

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought against the General Court judgment dismissing Telefónica's appeal of the 2007 Commission decision fining Telefónica approximately €151.9m for an alleged margin squeeze contrary to Article 102 TFEU. The Court of Justice issued its judgment on 10 July 2014. The case focuses on whether it is possible to establish a 'margin squeeze' without confirming the indispensability of the wholesale input(s) in question.  Parties Appellants: • Telefónica SA • Telefónica de España SAU Other Parties:• European Commission • France Telecom España SA • Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios • European Competitive Telecommunications Association Telefónica SA is the parent company of the Telefónica group, a former state monopoly in the telecommunications sector in Spain. In the period concerned by Commission decision, Telefónica supplied broadband services through its subsidiary Telefónica de España, SAU and through two other subsidiaries, Telefónica Data de España, SAU, and Terra

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 and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 834/17 dismissing an action seeking economic damages allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2013 to prohibit the United Parcel Service/TNT Express merger (Case M.6570).. Latest development On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. I particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that: (i) the General Court had not distorted the facts or the Commission’s prohibition decision; (ii) the General Court’s judgment was sufficiently reasons; and (iii) the General Court had not erred in finding that there was a causal link between the Commission’s errors and the damages claimed by United Parcel Service. Parties Applicant:• United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)Defendant: • European Commission (the Commission) Background The

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline National reference from Portugal seeking clarification on the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU in respect of certain information exchanges. Latest developments On 29 July 2024, the Court of Justice ruled that a standalone exchange of confidential information between competitors may constitute a by object restriction. This is the case where the info is confidential and strategic in the sense that it may reveal the future conduct of a competitor on the relevant market. Parties Applicants:• Banco BPN/BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral – Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA, Unión de Creditos Imobiliarios, SA – Estabelecimento Financeiro de Crédito SOC, Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL, Banco Comercial Português, SA

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 30/20 Volvo and Others—a national reference from Spain seeking clarification on the interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters Latest developments On 25 February 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which ruled (amongst other things) that in the absence, at national law, of a specialised court, an undertaking which made it purchases in several places may bring an action before the court within whose jurisdiction it registered office is located. Parties Applicant:• RHDefendentst:• AB Volvo• Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH• Vovlo Lastvagnar AB, and• Volvo Group España SA (together, Volvo) Market Trucks. Background to reference Background RH is an undertaking domiciled in Cordoba (Spain), where between 2004 and 2009 it purchased five trucks from a Volvo Group España dealer. The first of those trucks

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 201/17 which ordered the Commission to pay damages to Printeos SA for refusal to pay interest on a reimbursed cartel fine. Latest development On 20 January 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the Commission’s argument concerning its failure to pay default interest to Printeos because it did not constitute a sufficiently serious breach of Article 266 TFEU and did not cause Printeos any damage must be dismissed. In addition, the Court of Justice allowed a cross-appeal by Printeos and found that the General Court had erred in ordering that interest be paid on the amount of the damages only from the date of its