CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 November 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Latvian Augstākā tiesa to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify, in particular, whether a restrictive covenant in a retail lease agreements (a non-compete) amounts to a restriction 'by object' within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. On 26 November 2015, the Court of Justice ruled that a restrictive covenant in a retail lease agreements (a non-compete) does not amount to a restriction 'by object' within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU but that this would not preclude it being found to have triggered the Article 101(1) prohibition on the basis of a full (and proper) 'effects' analysis. This matter highlights the potential impact of competition law on land agreements—with significant implications for parties active in the commercial property sector. The matter also revisits the much discussed issue regarding

CASE HUB (date of judgment—19/01/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the of the decision of 19 January 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court partially annulling Commission letters demanding late payment interest in relation to a cartel fine imposed under the Commission's 'Acrylic glass cartel’ decision. The claimed interest had accrued on a fine imposed on Total and Elf—companies who had been held jointly and several liable for the participation of their subsidiary, Atofina (now Arkema), in the cartel (a cartel concerning the supply of a glass substitute known as ‘acrylic glass’) and in the context of measures adopted subsequently by the Commission to execute General Court judgments which reduced the fine imposed on Arkema but maintained the parents' liability for Arkema's infringing conduct. On 19 January 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission's appeal—in particular, confirming that the General Court had not ‘erred in law’

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the German Landgericht Dortmund 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 law damages claim where there are multiple defendants but the claim against the sole ‘anchor defendant’ is settled after the claim was lodged. 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 sets out a starting point and a standard by which a court can determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case or not. Parties Applicant (in national damages claim): Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC)Defendants (in national damages claim):• Evonik Degussa GmbH• Akzo Nobel N.V.• Solvay SA• Kemira Oyj• Arkema France• FMC Foret

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 362/16 Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 865/16 which upheld an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision which found tax privileges to Spanish clubs to be a breach of the State aid rules (SA.29769). Latest development On 4 March 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and decided not to refer the case back to the General Court. The Court of Justice noted in particular that: (i) the mere fact that aid was granted individually to the clubs on the basis of the aid scheme at issue cannot have any bearing on the examination to be carried out by the Commission to determine the existence of an advantage; and (ii) the impossibility

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 December 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—20/12/2017 Outline Appeal brought by Trioplast against the judgment of the General Court dismissing in its entirety an action for annulment of a letter sent by the Commission claiming payment of late interest in relation a fine imposed by the Commission in its decision dated 30 November 2015 (which concerned a subsidiary of Trioplast and its participation in the ‘industrial bags’ cartel) (AT.38354). The Commission’s letter arose in the context of measures adopted by the Commission following the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 40/16 Trioplast Industrier v Commission which reduced the fine for which Trioplast was held jointly and severally liable. Outcome On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed in its entirety Trioplast’s appeal on the basis that the General Court was correct in concluding

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 February 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Opinion and Judgment Case C-365/12 P Commission v Enbw Energie Baden-Württemberg opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón delivered on 13 October 2013 Case C-365/12 P Commission v Enbw Energie Baden-Württemberg, judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 February 2014 Relevant cases Case C-139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P Sweden and Others v API and Commission Case C-404/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob Case C‑477/10 P Commission v Agrofert Holding Case C-536/11 Donau Chemie and Others (case hub)Case C‑360/09 Pfleiderer Case C‑28/08 P Commission v Bavarian Lager Gas insulated switchgear (case hub) Timeline Date Event Commentary The Court of Justice noted that the Commission is entitled to rely on general presumptions in refusing to provide access to third parties

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 June 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Nexans and Nexans France against the judgment of the General Court partially upholding the Commission decision of 28 January 2009 ordering Nexans SA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it (including Nexans France) to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(4) 1/2003 and in furtherance of the Commission investigation into a suspected cartel in high-voltage electrical cables sector ('power cables cartel').On 25 June 2014, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The case focuses on the scope of the Commission's powers of investigation when carrying out unannounced inspections as well as the rights of companies subject to investigation. Parties Appellants: • Nexans France SAS• Nexans SA Other party: European Commission Nexans SA and its wholly-owned subsidiary Nexans France SAS are French companies active in the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Case C- 372/19 SABAM—a national reference from Belgium seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 102 TFEU (whether or not read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2014/26/EU) should be interpreted as meaning there is abuse of a dominant position if a copyright management company (which has a de facto monopoly) applies a remuneration model to organisers of musical events for the right to communicate musical works to the public, based among other things on turnover. Latest developments On 25 November 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it concluded that the mere fact that the tariff system adopted by SABAM does not in itself constitute an indication of the existence of unfair prices, nor does not make it possible to find the existence of such an abuse. It is for the referring court to assess whether the application of

CASE HUB (date of judgment—20/01/2016) 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 20 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought by Toshiba against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 7 February 2009 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a fine of €13.2m on Toshiba for its alleged participation in a cartel concerning the supply of power transformers between 1999 and 2003 ('Power transformers cartel'). On 20 January 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety, in particular confirming that the 'Gentlemen’s Agreement' in question was capable of restricting (at least 'potential') competition within the European Economic Area (EEA).The matter focuses, amongst other things, on the classification of an agreement as 'by object' (ie the basis upon which an agreement is classified as 'by object' and, in turn, the implication this has in terms of the type of analysis

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE—20/09/2018 Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice of the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action for the annulment of the European Commission decision rejecting a complaint brought by Agria Polska which alleged that a number of its rivals, large agrochemical companies (aided by industry bodies and a law firm), had infringed Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by waging a 'vexatious' administrative and criminal law campaign aimed at excluding Agria Polska and its subsidiaries from the 'plant protection products' market in a number of EU Member States (and, in particular, in Poland). The Commission decided not to open an in-depth investigation on the basis of enforcement priorities and, as part of this consideration, its determination that there was a limited likelihood of establishing the existence of an infringement.  Latest development On 20 September 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, rejecting

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 July 2023; it is no longer maintained. CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 376/20 P upholding an action for annulment of the Commission’s 2016 decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition by Hutchinson 3G UK Investments Limited (Three) of Telefonica plc (O2) (Case M.7612). Outcome On 13 July 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which upheld the appeal against the General Court’s judgment, set it aside and referred the case back to the General Court for it to provide a new ruling. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the General Court had: (i) applied a standard of proof which does not follow from the EU’s merger law; (ii) distorted the Commission’s decision in its assessment of the closeness of competition between the merging parties; (iii) made errors of law in considering the Commission's assessment of pricing

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position of the date of judgment of 12 May 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 377/20 Servizio Elettrico Nazionale and Others—a national reference from Italy seeking clarification on various issues concerning the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 9 December 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment proposed (amongst other things) that when an undertaking loses the legal monopoly on a market, it must refrain, throughout the liberalisation phase of that market, from resorting to the means it had under its former monopoly, which, as such, are not available to its competitors, for the purpose of maintaining, other than on its own merits, a dominant position on the newly-liberalised market. The unbundled subsidiaries of that former monopoly undertaking had a special responsibility to refrain from any behaviour on the market that continued to be protected which was likely to harm an effective competitive