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Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 April 2017; it is no longer maintained.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 judgment of the General Court partially annulling the Commission's decision as it relates to a fine imposed on Akzo (reduced to €40.194m under that judgment) for Akzo group companies' alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers ('Heat stabilisers cartel'). In particular, Akzo is appealing the General Court's judgment insofar as it holds that fines originally imposed on two of Akzo's subsidiaries for their participation in the infringements can still be attributed to Akzo even though the General Court annulled the subsidiaries' fines. On 27 April 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety and, therefore, confirmed the General Court judgment (and the revised fines imposed). In particular, the Court of Justice concluded (contrary to Advocate General Wahl's non-binding

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 516/19 NMI Technologietransfer—a national reference from Germany seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, the GBER must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes an enterprise (90% owned by a trust, although not involved in its day-to-day management and comprised mainly of persons representing public bodies) from being regarded as an SME. Latest developments On 24 September 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled (amongst other things) that the GBER (ie Regulation No 651/2014) does not preclude an entity from being regarded an SME if it has a capital holding body mainly composed of members representing public bodies. Parties Applicant:• NMI Technologietransfer GmbH (hereafter, NMI TT)Defendant:• EuroNorm GmbH (EuroNorm) Market Research in the fields of engineering, science and medicine. Background to reference The parties The NMI Institute The NMI Naturwissenschaftliches

CASE HUB (date of judgment—26/07/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 July 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing AGC’s action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 6 August 2012 under which the Hearing Officer refused AGC’s requests for confidential treatment of certain information (information provided by Degussa in the course of its leniency application) set to be included in the published version of the 'Car glass cartel' decision. On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice concluded that the General Court (despite committing an error regarding the powers of the Hearing Officer) demonstrated, to the requisite legal standard, the reasons why it considered that the Commission was entitled to publish the information at issue. This matter focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with requests for confidential treatment of information—in particular, in relation to information included (or redacted as the case may be) in non-confidential

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 February 2011; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, related/relevant cases and commentary Case facts Outline National reference from the Stockholm District Court to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU regarding the application of Article 102 TFEU in a margin squeeze case. The Court of Justice issued its judgment on 17/02/2011. The TeliaSonera matter is one of a number of important (and high profile) European cases recently reviewed (concerning the provision of broadband services by former national incumbents in newly liberalised telecommunications markets) that have been pivotal in clarifying, amongst other things, that a 'margin squeeze' is a stand-alone abuse—viable in the absence of other exclusionary practices. Parties • TeliaSonera Sverige AB (TeliaSonera) • Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court)• Swedish National Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket) Market(s) The Swedish wholesale market for regional and national access to broadband Internet. Background to reference In 2004, the Konkurrensverket filed a case before the Stockholm District

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 June 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Austrian Cartel Court on whether Austrian law, which (in practice) prohibits third party access to leniency documents that have been placed before the national court, is compatible with EU law. Parties • Verband Druck & Medientechnik, trade association representing interests of undertakings in the Austrian printing sector • Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austrian Cartel Court) • Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB)—the Austrian Federal Competition Authority • Donau Chemie AG and six others Market(s) The Austrian market for wholesale distribution of printing chemicals. Background to reference Following a leniency application in April 2009, the BWB applied to the Cartel Court imposing fines against a number of companies active on the Austrian printing chemicals market for their participation in a cartel. The Cartel Court ruled in favour of the application on 26 March 2010 and subsequently imposed fines totalling €1,519,000 (upheld by the Supreme Cartel Court on 4 October

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 July 2016; 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 whether an undertaking can be held to have participated in a 'concerted practice' within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU where the activities in question were not committed (or consented to) by the undertaking but, rather, were carried out without authorisation (and without the knowledge of the undertaking) by a third party contractor—one who also acted as a service provider (and facilitator) to other parties confirmed to have participated in the concerted practice. On 21 July 2016 the Court of Justice ruled that Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a company may, in principle, be held liable for the activities of an independent service provider (supplying the company

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 November 2017it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline National reference from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court of Spain) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify the extent to which a European Commission decision to accept remedies under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 is binding on national courts in Member States. The decision in question relates to the Commission’s acceptance of commitments from Repsol in 2006 (Case AT.38348). Outcome On 23 November 2017, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, ruling that a Commission decision to accept commitments in relation to specific arrangements does not preclude a national court from examining the legality of those specific agreements with antitrust rules and, if necessary, from declaring them invalid under Article 101(2) TFEU. Parties • Gasorba SL (Gasorba), a family owned Spanish company, which operates a service station in the municipality of Orba (a village in the Spanish

CASE HUB—Case C– 550/07 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice of the General Court judgment upholding the Commission decision that internal communications between companies and their in-house counsel and employees are not protected by legal professional privilege. ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 September 2010; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Case C– 550/07 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice of the General Court judgment upholding the Commission decision that internal communications between companies and their in-house counsel and employees are not protected by legal professional privilege. Parties • Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd (Akzo) and its subsidiary Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Akcros) • European Commission. Market(s) Legal services Background to reference • On 10 February 2003, the Commission carried out a dawn raid at the premises of Akzo and its subsidiary Akcros. During the dawn raid, the Commission's officials, amongst other documents, seized two email communications. The communication were between a company

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 556/19 Eco TLC—a national reference from France seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, a system whereby a private, non-profit eco-body (approved by the public authorities) receives contributions from those who place on the market a particular category of product and who enter into a contract with it to that effect, in return for a service consisting in the organisation on their behalf of the treatment of the waste from those products, and redistributes to operators responsible for the sorting and recovery of that waste, subsidies the amount of which is set out in the approval, in the light of environmental and social targets—should be regarded as illegal State aid. Latest developments On 22 October 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it concluded that a French textile waste recovery scheme did not constitute State aid. Parties Applicant•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 June 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether the treatment of 'umbrella pricing' under Member State domestic law (in particular, laws which exclude the possibility for customers of undertakings not involved in a cartel to be able to claim compensation from the cartel participants for any overcharge suffered as a result of 'umbrella effects') is compatible with EU law. See Are cartels liable for umbrella pricing claims? Parties • KONE AG (Kone)• Otis GmbH (Otis)• Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH (Schindler Aufzüge) • Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH (Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung)• ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH (ThyssenKrupp)• ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (ÖBB)• Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court)Kone, Otis, Schindler Aufzüge, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung and ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge undertakings are parties active in the supply, installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in a number of Member States.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by the European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) against the General Court judgment upholding the Commission decision of 20 May 2009 rejecting EFIM's complaint concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints. It also confirms the substantive assessment of 'aftermarkets' for the purpose of analysing Article 102 TFEU. Parties Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) Other Parties:• European Commission• Lexmark International Technology SA (Lexmark) Background On March 30 2000, Pelikan AG (Pelikan), an ink and ink cartridge manufacturer, lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging an abuse of a dominant position by Hewlett-Packard. Following discussions between Pelikan and the Commission

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 263/17 upholding an action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.35388)) concerning aid setting up Gydnia-Kosakowo airport. Latest developments On 11 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it set aside the General Court’s judgment because it was vitiated by errors and referred the case back to the General Court. Parties Appellant:• European CommissionRespondents:• Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Gdynia)• Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o (Kosakowo) Background Background Gdynia and Kosakowo are two Polish municipalities. In July 2007, Gydnia and Kosakowo created and owned 100% of the Port of Lotniczy Gydnia Kosakowo (PLGK), with the aim of converting the Gdynia-Oksywie military airport for public use. The airport is in Kosakowo, in northern Poland. The new public airport, which would be managed by PLGK, was to become the region’s second largest airport