CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases 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 the proper approach to handling leniency applications where an applicant lodges applications with both a national competition authority (NCA) and the European Commission—confirming (amongst other things) whether, on a proper interpretation of Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Article 11 of Regulation No 1/2003, it follows that it is not possible for an NCA to deviate from the instruments defined and adopted by the European Competition Network (ECN) and, in particular, from the ECN's Model Leniency Programme without running counter to the findings of the Court of Justice in Pfleiderer. On 20 January 2016, the Court of Justice ruled that instruments adopted in the context of the ECN (including

CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/12/2014) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by the Commission against the judgment of the General Court partially annulling the Commission decision of 28 January 2009 and reducing the fine imposed on Parker ITR in relation to its participation in a global cartel for the supply of marine hose between 1986 and 2007 ('Marine hoses cartel'). On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice upheld the Commission's appeal, set aside the General Court's judgment (paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment) and referred the case back to the General Court. The case focuses on the principles of EU competition law applicable to cartels where an intra-group transfer of the infringing assets takes place—in particular: • the principle of personal responsibility, according to which an infringement must be attributed to the natural or legal person

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 435/18 Otis Gesellshaft m.b.h. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others-a national reference from Austria seeking clarification as to whether various elevator manufacturers should be exposed to damages claims from an Austrian local council on the basis that their cartel conduct inflated its loans to construction companies. Latest developments On 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. The Court of Justice confirmed that, under Article 101 TFEU, persons not operating as suppliers or as customers on a market affected by a cartel may claim compensation for loss caused by that cartel. Parties • Otis Gesellshaft m.b.h.• Land Oberösterreich Market The market for the supply of elevators and escalators in Austria. Background to reference The present matter arises from a 2007 European Commission decision imposing fines of over €900m

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 January 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline National reference from Romania seeking clarification seeking clarification as to the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU in respect of minimum remuneration for lawyers. Latest developments On 25 January 2024, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it proposed that Bulgarian rules that fix minimum amount for lawyers’ legal fees are a restriction ‘by object’ of Article 101 TFEU. A national court can disapply the national legislation, even when the minimum amount set out in the law reflects actual market prices for lawyers’ services. Parties Applicant:•  Em akaunt BG ЕООD (the Applicant)Defendants:• Zastrahovatelno aktsionerno druzhestvo ‘Armeets’ AD(the Defendant) Market Legal services. Background to reference The Applicant brought an action before the Sofia District Court, Bulgaria, claiming property insurance compensation from its insurer following the theft of a motor vehicle. The compensation claim included the applicant's lawyers’ fees (BCN1,070) calculated

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 March 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- 433/16 which partially annulled an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision in the steel abrasives cartel (AT.39792). Latest development On 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it agreed with Advocate General Hogan by partially upholding the appeal in so far as the General Court breached the principle of equal treatment in calculating the fine imposed on Pometon SpA. The Court of Justice reduced the fine to €2.6m. Parties Appellant:• Pometon SpA (Pometon)• Defendant: European Commission Market(s) Steel abrasives.Steel abrasives are loose steel particles that are used to clean or enhance metal surfaces in the steel, automotive, metallurgy and petrochemicals industries. They are also used for cutting hard stones, eg granite and marble.The main material

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 561/18 which partially upheld an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 May 2018 approving compensation granted by Denmark to Post Danmark to fulfil its public postal service duty during 2017-2019 was compatible with the State aid rules (SA.4707). Latest developments On 10 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. It found that none of the arguments raised by the appellants were capable of showing that the General Court had erred in law or distorted the evidence. The appellants' arguments were either unfounded or inadmissible. In particular, the General Court had not erred in rejecting arguments that Post Danmark's reputation and ubiquity should have been taken into account as benefits of the universal service obligation. Furthermore,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 445/1919 Viasat Broadcasting UK—a national reference from Denmark seeking clarification on as to whether, amongst other things, the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest also applies in the situation where the unlawful State aid constituted public service compensation which was subsequently found to be compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU. Latest developments On 24 November 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it concluded that TV2/Danmark A/s should pay ‘illegality interest’ on State aid it received from the Danish government because it was not properly notified. The fact that the aid was subsequently deemed by the European Commission to be legal and that TV2/Danmark A/S offered a service of general economic interest did not change that conclusion. Parties Applicant• Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (Viasat).Defendant:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from France seeking clarification on the applicability of Article 102 TFEU to a merger, lacking an EU dimension, not meeting the thresholds for compulsory ex ante control provided for by national law and not having given rise to a referral to the Commission under Article 22 EUMR Latest developments On 16 March 2023 the Court of Justice issued its judgment, answering the question raised as follows: Article 21(1) EUMR does not preclude a concentration between undertakings from being analysed by a competition authority of a Member State under Article 102 TFEU in light of the structure of competition on a market with a national dimension, where that concentration: (i) does not have a Community dimension, within the meaning of Article 1 EUMR; (ii) is below the mandatory ex ante control thresholds laid down by national law; and (iii) has not given rise to a reference to

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 450/19 Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto—a national reference from Finland seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 101 TFEU can be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where a cartel participant has entered into a contract with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made (ie the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed). Latest developments On 14 January 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it agreed with the opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella that the duration of the infringement period for a breach of Article 101 TFEU, in the form of cooperation in

CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 July 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C-451/18 Tibor-Trans Fuvarozóé és Kereskedelmi Kft v DAF Trucks N.V.—a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification on jurisdictional issues concerning a claim for damages based on the European Commission’s trucks cartel decision of 19 July 2016 (Case AT.39824). Latest developments On 29 July 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C- 451/18 Tibor-Trans Fuvarozóé és Kereskedelmi Kft v DAF Trucks N.V., a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification on jurisdictional issues concerning a claim for damages based on the European Commission’s trucks cartel decision of 19 July 2016 (Case AT.39824). In this ruling, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 7(2) 215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for damages caused by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, consisting of, amongst other things, collusive arrangements on pricing and gross

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- 453/19 Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission—an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 492/15 which dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision approving aid to Frankfurth Hahn airport and Ryanair (Case SA.21121). Latest development On 15 July 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa (LH) Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Airport services and scheduled passenger air transport. Background Background Between 2002 and 2006, the Commission received complaints from various parties alleging that Ryanair plc (Ryanair) as well as Frankfurt Hahn airport operator Flughafen-Hahn Gmbh had been granted unlawful State aid by Fraport AG (until 31 December 2008 the parent company of Frankfurt Hahn airport and operator of Frankfurt Main airport) and the Länder (Federal States) of Rhineland-Palatinate

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 June 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, relevant/related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Joined Cases T- 554/15 and T- 555/15 dismissing an action for annulment of two Commission decisions ordering the interim suspension of new Hungarian tax regimes (in relation to health in the tobacco industry and food chains) pending completion of in-depth investigations (Cases SA.41187 and SA.40018). Latest developments On 4 July 2020, the Court of Justice upheld the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the Suspension Decisions. In particular, the Court of Justice ruled that the Suspension Decisions were vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons and infringed Article 296 TFEU. Parties Appellant:• HungaryRespondent:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Commission investigations In December 2014, the Commission became aware of an amendment to Hungarian national law. In essence, this amendment aimed at altering the structure of the food chain inspection fee