CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 462/19 Anesco e.a.—a national reference from Spain seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that agreements between operators and employee representatives are prohibited where they (i) stipulate that undertakings which leave a Stevedore Management Company (SAGEP) must accept the transfer of SAGEP workers and (ii) establish the method by which the transfer takes place Latest developments On 16 September 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it concluded that the request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission for Markets and Competition, Spain) was inadmissible on the basis it was not a ‘national court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU. Applicant:Parties • Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) Market Stevedoring

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 January 2021; it is no longer maintained.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- 371/17 which dismissed an action for annulment of a formal request for information issued by the Commission in the context of the Commission’s Article 102 investigation against Qualcomm into predatory pricing practices (AT.39711). Latest development On 28 January 2021, 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’s conclusions that the Commission’s information request was both necessary and proportionate. The Court of Justice agreed with the General Court that the Commission was entitled to seek necessary information to continue with its fact-finding after the adoption of the statement of objections, and to seek to clarify the evidence and arguments

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline An appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 218/18 which partially upheld an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 31 July 2017 which found that public support by Germany to Frankfurt Hahn airport did not constitute unlawful State aid (Case SA.45765). Latest developments On 14 September 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it set aside the General Court’s judgment and referred the case back to the General Court. In particular, it found that the General Court had failed to its duty to state reasons and made several errors of law. Parties Applicants:• Land Rheinland-Pfalz and the European Commission (the Commission).Defendant:• Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Deutsche Lufthansa) Background Background Frankfurt-Hahn airport is a regional airport located in the German State (Land) of Rhineland-Palatinate, approximately 120km west of the city Frankfurt/Main.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Chimiques du Fluor (ICF) against the judgment of the General Court dismissing ICF's action for annulment of the Commission decision of 25 June 2008 that imposed a fine on ICF for its participation in a global cartel for the supply of aluminium fluoride ('Aluminium fluoride cartel').On 9 October 2014, the Court of Justice dismissed ICF's appeal in its entirety and ordered ICF to pay costs of the proceedings. This matter, like a number of recent case reviews, comments on the issue of adjudication within a reasonable period of time (and, in particular, whether any breach of this obligation creates rights in relation to the contested decision and/or the level of fine imposed). Parties Appellant: Société des Industries Chimiques du Fluor SA (ICF) Other party: European Commission ICF is a Tunisian company active in the production and sale

CASE HUB (date of judgment—27/04/2017) 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 27 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court partially upholding the Commission's decision of 12 October 2011 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing a fine of €8.92m (reduced by the General Court to €6.69m) on FSL (jointly and severally with two subsidiaries) for its subsidiary's alleged participation in a price fixing cartel in southern Europe for the supply of bananas ('Exotic fruits—Bananas cartel'). On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed in its entirety the appeal and therefore confirmed the General Court judgment (and the recalculated fine it imposed). As part its judgment, the Court of Justice concluded that the Commission had acted appropriately in using information and documents (obtained through means other than a competition law investigation) to make its case against FSL. This confirms that

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision on 13 December 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Telefónica against the judgment of the General Court upholding (for the most part) the Commission’s decision of 23 January 2013 (AT.39839) which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Telefónica in relation to a non-compete arrangement affecting the Iberian telecommunications market.The matter focussed, amongst other things, on the classification of a scrutinised non-compete as a 'by object' restriction (and the implication this has in terms of the type of analysis the Commission must carry out)—in particular, in a context where the parties to a non-compete arrangement are not 'actual' competitors and where evidence regarding 'potential' competition between the parties has not been demonstrated (or is in dispute). Outcome On 13 December 2017, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed in its entirety Telefónica’s appeal on the basis that (i) Telefónica

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Schindler and other subsidiaries in the Schindler group against the General Court judgment dismissing Schindler's action for annulment of the Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €143.7m for its alleged participation in an elevator and escalator cartel between 1995 and 2004. At the time of the Commission decision, the combined fine of €992.3m on four elevator and escalator manufacturers was the highest overall fine ever imposed by the Commission for a cartel violation (and included what was then the largest individual fine on an undertaking (ThyssenKrupp)—a fine which has since been reduced by nearly €160m on appeal following the General Court's judgment). This case focuses (amongst other things) on the interaction between the administrative procedure for enforcing competition law (namely by the Commission) and the protection of fundamental

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 May 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Eni SpA against the General Court judgment partially upholding the Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €272.25m jointly and severally on Eni and its subsidiary Versalis SpA in relation to the latter's alleged participation in a European wide cartel for the supply of butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber (referred hereafter as BR and ESBR respectively or collectively as 'synthetic rubber') between 20 May 1996 to 28 November 2002. Despite confirming the infringement, the General Court reduced the fine (to €181.5m) on the basis that the 50% uplift imposed for recidivism had not been substantiated by the Commission. The European Commission cross-appealed, seeking to set aside the General Court judgment insofar as it annulled the contested decision's finding of aggravating circumstances (namely repeated infringements) and, consequently, reduced

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Action brought by the Commission against Greece for failure to comply with the Court of Justice’s 2017 judgment in Case C- 481/16 which affirmed a Commission decision finding that certain measures of financial support provided by Greece to Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A (Larco) constituted illegal State aid (Case SA.34572). Latest developments On 20 January 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that (1) Greece failed to fulfil its obligations to implement its 2017 judgment and (2) that the failure continued up to the Court of Justice’s examination of the facts. Parties Appellant:• European Commission (the Commission)Respondent: • Greece Background Background As part of its economic adjustment programme, Greece undertook a privatisation programme. Larco was earmarked as a State-owned company for privatisation. In March 2012, the Hellenic Republic Asset Development

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Kone against the judgment of the General Court dismissing its action for annulment of the Commission decision of 21 February 2007 that imposed a fine of €142.12m jointly and severally on Kone Oyj and its German and Dutch subsidiaries for their alleged participation in a Benelux and German cartel for the supply, installation, maintenance and modernisation of elevators and escalators between 1995 and 2004 ('Elevators and escalators cartel').At the time of the Commission decision, the combined fine of €992.3m on four elevator and escalator manufacturers was the highest overall fine ever imposed by the Commission for a cartel violation (and included what was then the largest individual fine on an undertaking (ThyssenKrupp)—a fine which has since been reduced by nearly €160m on appeal following the General Court's judgment).The case focuses

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 June 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Versalis SpA (formerly Polimeri Europa SpA) against the General Court judgment partially upholding the Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €272.25m jointly and severally on Versalis and its parent company, Eni SpA, for their alleged participation in a European wide cartel for the supply of butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber (referred hereafter as BR and ESBR respectively or collectively as 'synthetic rubber') between 20 May 1996 to 28 November 2002. Despite confirming the infringement, the General Court reduced the fine (to €181.5m) on the basis that the 50% uplift imposed for recidivism had not been substantiated by the Commission. The European Commission cross-appealed, seeking to set aside the General Court judgment insofar as it annulled the contested decision's finding of aggravating circumstances (namely repeated infringements) and, consequently, reduced

CASE HUB (ARCHIVE 28/01/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Éditions Odile Jacob against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 13 May 2011 approving Wendel Investissement as the purchaser of divested assets in accordance with commitments provided under the conditional clearance decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the merger whereby Lagardère acquired sole control of the assets of Vivendi Universal Publishing (Case COMP/M.2978—Lagardère/Natexis/VUP). On 28 January 2016, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court's judgment thereby confirming that the Commission was justified in approving, for a second time, Wendel’s acquisition of Vivendi Universal Publishing's assets—assets which Lagardère had been required to sell as a condition of the merger clearance. This matter focuses primarily on procedural issues in relation to the divestiture process—ie suitability of purchaser and, more specifically, assuring and assessing the independence of the identified