CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Latvian Augstākās Tiesas Senāts to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify a number of points relating to the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) to a competition damages action—in particular, relating to questions arising on a challenge to enforcement in Latvia of interim measures issued in Lithuania. On 23 October 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that an action for damages for infringement of competition law is a 'civil and commercial matter' and, therefore, within the scope of the Brussels Regulation. The Brussels Regulation provides the basic parameters for determining jurisdiction when claims involve parties located in different Member States. In terms of competition litigation, the Brussels Regulation (along with the Lugano Convention) sets out a starting point and a standard by which a court can determine whether it has jurisdiction

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 306/20 Visma Enterprise—a national reference from Latvia as to whether, amongst other things, an arrangement between a producer and a number of distributors (under which the distributor who was first to register a potential transaction with the producer enjoys priority in progressing the sale process with the end user concerned for 6 months from that registration, unless the user objects) be regarded as an agreement within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. Latest developments On 19 November 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it suggested that the referring court needs to look at the terms, objective and context of an agreement to establish if it is clear breach of Article 101 TFEU. It the company’s distribution agreements are not a by object breach, then the referring court should assess whether they have the effect of harming competition. Parties Applicant:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 307/18 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others v Competition and Markets Authority—a national reference from the UK concerning the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in relation to pay for delay patent settlement agreements. Latest developments .On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. The Court of Justice closely followed the opinion of Advocate General Kokott, confirming (amongst other things) that such agreements may constitute a restriction of competition by object or effect and/or an abuse of a dominant position. Parties Applicants:• Generics (UK) Ltd (GUK)• GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK)• Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS (Xellia)• Alpharma LLL (formerly Zoetis Products LLC (Alpharma) and• Merck KGaA (Merk)Defendant:Competition and Markets authority (CMA) Market Pharmacuticals—anti-depressant medicines, namely paracetine. Background to reference CMA’s decision On 12 February 2016, the CMA issued its infringement decision in GlaxoSmithKline

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 308/19 Whitleland Import Export—a national reference from Romania seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Articles 4(3) TFEU and 101 TFEU must be interpreted as (1) requiring the courts of Member States to interpret the provisions of national law governing the time-limit on the Competition Authority’s right to impose administrative penalties in accordance with the provisions of Article 25(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003(1) and, (2) as precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law as meaning that an action interrupting the limitation period means only the formal action of initiating the investigation into an anticompetitive practice, without the subsequent actions taken for the purpose of such investigation falling within the same scope of the actions interrupting the limitation period. Latest developments On 21 January 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which ruled (amongst other

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice brought by Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd against the General Court’s decision that Eco-Bat Technologies action against the Commission’s decision, as corrected, in Case AT. 40018 concerning a car battery recycling cartel was not lodged in time. Outcome On 21 March 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal, upholding the General Court’s order that Eco-Bat Technologies Limited lodged its appeal out of time. The Court of Justice found that an amendment to the initial Commission decision did not have the effect of ‘resetting’ the deadline for challenging it—which Eco Bat Technologies Ltd had missed. Parties Applicant:• Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd (Eco-Bat Technologies) • Berzelius Metall Gmb•Société traitements chimiques des métaux Defendant:• European Commission Market(s) Purchasing of car batteries for recycling.Car

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 February 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain seeking clarification on (amongst other things) the quantification of damages for breaches of Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 16 February 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. The Court of Justice first held (amongst other things) that Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, in the event that the claim is partially upheld, costs are to be borne by each party (who therefore bears half of the common costs). However, diverging from Advocate General Kokott’s opinion, the Court of Justice clarified that information asymmetry between the parties is not taken into account in the assessment of the possibility for a national court to estimate the harm caused by such an infringement. Parties Applicants:• Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, S.L., D. Ignacio (the Applicants)Defendants:• Daimler AG (Daimler) Market Trucks. Background to reference Damages

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 March 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether framework agreements executed between insurance companies and car repairers (or between insurance companies and an association of car repairers, under which the hourly repair price depends upon the number or percentage of insurance policies sold), amounted to restrictions of competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. On 13 March 2013, the Court of Justice ruled that agreements concerning the price of repairs of insured vehicles concluded between insurance companies and repair shops have an anti-competitive object and are, therefore, prohibited as they are, 'by their very nature', injurious to the proper functioning of normal competition. This case is notable insofar as it reviews the ‘by object’/’by effect’

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. 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 whether the principles of EU competition law and Articles 101, 102 and 106 TFEU preclude the application of tariffs for verification activities carried out by the società organismi di attestazione (SOAs). Parties • Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture• Soa Nazionale Costruttori—Organismo di Attestazione Spa• Consiglio di Stato (Italy). Market(s) Certification of tenderers for participation in public tenders in Italy. Background to reference The reference was made by the Italian Consiglio di Stato  regarding a dispute as to the Italian system of tenderers certification under which private certification organisations

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline A national reference from Portugal seeking clarification on the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU (via the Portuguese equivalent) to a partnership agreement (including a system of tied selling and non-compete clauses) between an electricity provider and a food distributor. Latest developments On 26 October 2023 the Court of Justice issued its judgment, answering the questions raised as follows: • Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking managing a network of consumer product retailers must be regarded as being, on the electricity market, a potential competitor of an electricity supplier with which it has concluded a partnership agreement containing a non-compete clause, even though that undertaking is not active on that product market at the time when that agreement is concluded, in so far as it is demonstrated, on the basis of a body of consistent facts taking into account the structure

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 542 RENV Alouminion v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision concerning aid granted by Greece to Alouminion tis Ellados through a preferential electricity tariff (SA.26117) . Latest developments On 11 December 2019, 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 did not make any errors of law in its assessment that the preferential electricity tariff constituted State aid, infringed its duty to state reasons or infringed Mytilinaios Anonymos Etaria—Omilos Epicheiriseon’s rights of defence. Parties Appellant:• Mytilinaios Anonymos Etaria—Omilos Epicheiriseon (Mytilinaios) (formerly known as Alouminion tis Ellado (AtE))Respondent:• European Commission• Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) Background Background Mytilinaios was a Greek aluminium producer. It was

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 A national reference from Spain seeking clarification on (amongst other things) the interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with stipulations by FIFA and UEFA in their statutes that the prior approval of those entities is required in order for a third-party entity to set up a new pan-European club competition like the European Super League (ESL) (and related sanctions threatened by FIFA and UEFA). Latest developments On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. In response to the competition law questions raised, the Court of Justice held that:• rules of associations responsible for football at world and European levels (and which pursue in parallel various economic activities related to the organisation of competitions) which make subject to their prior approval the setting up, on EU territory, of a new interclub football competition by a third-party undertaking, and which control the participation

CASE HUB NOTE—referral back to the General Court in Case T- 131/16 RENV ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 131/16 which upheld an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning selective tax advantages granted by Belgium under its ‘excess profit’ tax scheme (SA.37667). Latest developments On 16 September 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it found that the General Court had committed several errors in its interpretation and application of Article 1(d) of Regulation 215/1589. Therefore, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgment. However, the Court of Justice concluded that the case should be referred back to the General Court for a ruling on two outstanding pleas raised at first instance concerning whether the Belgian scheme constituted state aid and the legality of the Commission's order to recover aid granted