CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by MasterCard and others against the General Court judgment dismissing their application to annul the Commission decision of 19 December 2007 finding that the multilateral interchange fee (MIF) under the MasterCard payment system infringed Article 101 TFEU. On 11 September 2014, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal (and cross-appeals) and confirmed the judgment of the General Court. This case focuses on the legality of payment card MIFs, including the possibility for the parties to justify these arrangements under the Article 101(3) TFEU exemption criteria. Parties Appellants: • MasterCard, Inc • MasterCard International, Inc • MasterCard Europe Other parties:• European Commission • Banco Santander SA • Royal Bank of Scotland plc • HSBC Bank plc • Bank of Scotland plc • Lloyds TSB Bank plc • MBNA Europe Bank Ltd• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland • British Retail Consortium • EuroCommerce AISBL MasterCard is an international payment

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 385/18 Arriva Italia and others—a national reference from Italy seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, the allocation of €70m to an operator in the rail transport sector and the transfer of this operator to another economic operator, without tendering and, in the absence of a call for tenders, constitutes unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 19 December 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that the allocation of €70m to an operator in the rail transport sector and the transfer of this operator to another economic operator, without tendering and, in the absence of a call for tenders, constitutes unlawful State aid, and that it is for the national court to consider appropriate measures to recoup the unlawful aid and reverse the transfer. Parties • Arriva Italia Srl, Ferrotramviairia SpA, Consorzio Trasporti

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Romania seeking clarification as to whether antitrust fines should be calculated according to a company’s total revenue if a large part of it is used to buy services on behalf of the company’s clients. Latest developments On 10 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it answered the referred questions in the negative—namely, a competition authority should not simply take into account the turnover of an undertaking as shown in its profit and loss account, but should rather examine the evidence put forward by that undertaking to show that such turnover does not reflect its real economic situation and that, consequently, another amount which reflects that situation should be taken into account as turnover. Parties Applicant:• Zenith Media Communications SRL (hereafter, Zenith)Defendants:• Consiliul Concurenței (hereafter, Competition Commission) Market Advertising networks Background to reference Competition

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by the Commission against the judgment of the General Court partially annulling the Commission’s decision of 4 February 2015 (Case AT.39861) which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed a fine totalling fines €14.9m on international broker, NEX, for its alleged facilitator role in relation to six cartels concerning the market for interest rate derivatives denominated in Japanese yen ('Yen interest rate derivatives cartels’). Outcome On 10 July 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which dismissed the appeal in its entirety The case is notable insofar as it involved a ‘hybrid’ settlement procedure—ie where the Commission, despite settling with a number of parties, continues to follow the ‘standard’ procedure in relation to parties that have

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 October 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 274/15 dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment against two Commission decisions dated 12 March 2015 and 8 May 2015. The former concerned the manner in which Commission inspectors had carried out dawn raids on 24 March 2015 in relation to AT.40244 (Bioethanol). The latter concerned the Commission’s letter rejecting the applicants’ request to suspend any investigative act concerning them in AT.40054 (Oil and Biofuel Markets) and AT.40244 (Bioethanol). Latest development On 17 October 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice held that EU rules protecting privileged communications between lawyers and their clients were sufficient to ensure that dawn raids against Alcogroup in the first inspection did not risk breaching its rights of defence in a separate (parallel)

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 19 September 2007 as it relates to YKK Corporation and its subsidiaries' participation in a price-fixing cartel for fasteners and attaching machines ('Fasteners cartel'). The case focuses on issues relating to joint and several liability and, in particular, the calculation of the 10% turnover upper limit for fines imposed in the context of successive liabilities. Parties Appellants:• YKK Corporation (YKK)• YKK Holding Europe BV (YKK Holding)• YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (YKK Stocko)Other party: European Commission YKK, a Japanese company, is a global leader in the market for zip fasteners and is active in 'other fasteners’ sectors. YKK's wholly-owned subsidiary, YKK Holding (purely a financial Dutch holding company), has 24 subsidiaries active in the manufacture and supply of buttons and fasteners. YKK Stocko (a German company

CASE HUB (date of judgment—12/01/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 January 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 20 July 2010 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €59.85m jointly and severally on CFPR and its subsidiary Timab for the latter's alleged participation in a market sharing and price-fixing cartel concerning the supply of animal feed phosphates in the EEA between 1969 and 2004 ('Animal feed phosphates cartel'). The Commission investigation resulted in a 'settlement procedure' in which all the implicated parties, save for CFPR/Timab, participated and 'settled' with the Commission. On 12 January 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed CFPR/Timab's appeal in its entirety, in particular confirming that the Commission was justified in imposing a higher fine on CFPR/Timab than would otherwise have

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Hague District Court) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether a provision in a collective labour agreement providing for a minimum rate (not only for employees but also for self-employed workers who perform the same work as employees but who do so on the basis of a contract for professional services) falls outside Article 101 TFEU (or otherwise benefits from exemption from the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition) on the basis that it is included as part of a collective labour agreement. On 4 December 2014, the Court of Justice issued a judgment ruled that it is only when self-employed service providers are ‘false self-employed’ that a provision of a collective labour agreement which sets minimum fees for those self-employed

CASE HUB (date of judgment—06/09/2017) Note—referred back to the General Court in Case T- 286/09 RENV See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—06/09/2017 Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 13 May 2009 finding an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU) and Article 54 EEA Agreement and imposing (what was at the time) a record individual fine on Intel of €1.06bn for the alleged infringement committed between October 2002 and December 2007. On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice upheld Intel’s appeal concluding that the General Court failed to analyse, in light of arguments put forward by Intel, whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition. The Court of Justice therefore set aside the General Court judgment and, in turn, referred the case back to the General Court so that the General Court may examine, in the light of the arguments put forward by Intel, whether the rebates at issue were in fact capable

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Bolloré against the judgment of the General Court upholding the readopted Commission decision which imposed a fine of €21.263m on Bolloré for its participation in a Europe-wide cartel for the supply of carbonless paper between 1992 and 1995 ('Carbonless paper cartel').This case raises issues regarding adjudication within a reasonable period of time and the rights of defence during the administrative procedure (in particular, the role of the Statement of Objections as a procedural safeguard ensuring that fundamental principles of EU law, such as rights of defence, are observed). Parties Appellant: Bolloré SA Other party: European Commission Bolloré SA (formerly known as Bolloré Technologies SA) is a French investment and industrial group. Copigraph SA was a wholly owned subsidiary of Bolloré and part of Bolloré's special papers division until its sale to Arjo Wiggins Appelton in November 1998. Background •

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 January 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- 814/177 in which it substantively dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 October 2017 finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and imposing a fine of €27,873,000 on AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai for dismantling a 19km long section of railway track connecting Lithuania and Latvia (AT.39813). Outcome On 12 January 2023, 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) the General Court did not err in its assessment of the abusive conduct; (ii) the General Court did not err in finding that the removal of the track was abusive were based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the judgment; (iii) the appellant’s arguments in relation to anti-competitive effects of the track removal

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 98/16 which upheld Italy’s appeal for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 December 2015, which found that funds granted to Bancas Tercas under the Italian mandatory deposit guarantee scheme breached EU State aid rules. Latest developments On 2 March 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The Court of Justice held that the General Court correctly found that the measures adopted by a consortium of Italian banks to support one of its members did not constitute State aid because they were not imputable to the Italian State. Parties Appellant:• European Commission (the Commission)Respondent:• Italy Background Background In 2013, an Italian bank, Banca Popolare di Bari (hereafter, BPB), expressed an interest in the subscription of additional capital in another Italian bank, Banca