CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 03 June 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases Case facts Outline An appeal against the General Court’s dismissal of an appeal (Case T- 222/17) of the Commission’s infringement decision regarding the car battery recycling cartel (Case AT.40018), seeking a reduction of the fines imposed against Recyclex and other undertakings belonging to the same group. Outcome On 3 June 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellants: • Recylex SA• Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA • Harz-Metall GmbH (together, ‘Recylex’)Defendant: • European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Recylex is a group of undertakings that is active in the production of recycled lead and other materials (polypropylene, zinc, special metals). Commission’s investigation In June 2012, the Commission launched a cartel investigation against car battery recycling companies following an application for leniency by Johnson Controls. On 26 September 2012, dawn raids

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts Outline National reference from the French Cour d’appel de Paris to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether it is compatible under Article 101 TFEU for Genentech to be ordered to pay royalties in relation to a patented technology for which the patent in question has been revoked. On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 101 TFEU does not preclude a requirement to pay royalties, even in circumstances where the beneficiary of the patent licence does not infringe the patented technology, provided the licensee was able freely to terminate the agreement by giving reasonable notice. Latest development On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, ruling that Article 101 TFEU does not preclude a requirement to pay royalties, even in circumstances where the beneficiary of the patent licence

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 57/19 Commission v Tempus energy and Tempus Energy Technology—appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 793/14 which upheld an action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.35980) finding that an aid scheme establishing a capacity market in the UK was compatible with the EU rules on State aid. Latest development On 2 September 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it set aside the General Court’s judgment and also dismissed the original Tempus appeal. Parties Appellants: • European Commission (the Commission)Defendent:• Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (hereafter, Tempus Energy) Market(s) The electricity capacity market. Background Background On 23 June 2014, the UK notified the Commission for State aid clearance for a period of 10 years to support capacity providers in the electricity market in Great Britain (the measure at

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Czechia seeking clarification regarding the evidence disclosure under the EU Damages Directive 2014/104/EU (the Damages Directive). Latest developments On 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that a national court may order the disclosure of certain evidence for the purpose of proceedings for damages connected with an alleged infringement of competition law, even if the proceedings have been stayed owing to the Commission’s initiation of an investigation concerning the same infringement. That court must, however, ensure that the disclosure of the relevant evidence is actually necessary and proportionate for the purpose of the action for damages and complies with the Damages Directive. Parties Applicant:• RegioJet a.s. (RegioJet)Respondent:• České dráhy, a.s. (České dráhy): České dráhy is the State owned railway company. Market Railway services. Background to reference Background On 25 January 2012, the Czech Competition Authority

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline andrelevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Action brought by the Commission against Italy for failure to comply with the Court of Justice’s 2012 judgment in Case C- 243/10 which affirmed a Commission decision concluding that State aid had been illegally granted to the hotel industry in Sardinia (SA.14895) Latest developments On 12 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that Italy failed to fulfil its obligations to implement its 2012 judgment by failing to take, at the end of the period fixed by the Commission, the measures necessary to recover the aid at issue in full. Parties Appellant:• European Commission (the Commission)• Respondent: • Italy Background Commission’s 2008 decision On 2 July 2008, the Commission issued a decision (after an in-depth investigation) in which it found that certain aid granted to Italy in favour of the hotel firms of Sardinia constituted illegal State

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 June 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Deltafina against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 20 October 2005 as it relates to Deltafina SpA's participation in a purchasing cartel for Italian raw tobacco ('Italian raw tobacco' cartel). The case focuses on the Commission's policy of granting immunity to a cartel participant only where cooperation is 'full, continuous and expeditious' as stated in the Leniency Notice on immunity or reductions from fines. This was the first Commission decision in which the Commission, after granting 'conditional immunity' under a leniency programme at the beginning of the administrative procedure, did not proceed to grant 'final immunity' at the end of the administrative procedure to an undertaking which was the first to reveal the existence of the cartel. Parties Appellant: Deltafina SpA (Deltafina)Other party: European Commission Deltafina is an Italian company active in the processing of

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment of 7 July 2021 in which it dismissed the action for annulment of he Commission’s decision of 9 July 2019 regarding alleged illegal State aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced property tax (SA.44671). Latest developments On 17 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal. It held that: (i) the General Court made no errors in finding that there were no serious difficulties requiring the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure; and (ii) there was no evidence that the General Court distorted the evidence submitted before it. Parties Appellants:• Irish Wind Farmers’ Association• Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Carrons Windfarm)• Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Foyle Windfarm)• Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Greenoge Windfarm)(together, the Applicants)Defendant:• The European Commission (the Commission) Background Background In

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 November 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Guardian Industries Corp and Guardian Europe Sàrl (Guardian) against the judgment of the General Court dismissing Guardian's action for partial annulment of the Commission decision of 28 November 2011 that imposed a fine on Guardian for its participation in a cartel for the supply of flat glass in the EEA ('Flat glass cartel').On 12 November 2014, the Court of Justice partially set aside the General Court judgment and reduced the fine imposed on Guardian from €148m to €103.6m.This case focuses on the treatment of captive sales in the calculation of fines imposed as well as the issue of court adjudication within a reasonable period of time. Parties Appellants: • Guardian Industries Corp• Guardian Europe Sàrl Other party: European Commission Guardian Industries Corp and Guardian Europe Sàrl are part of the Guardian Group

CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Deutsche Bahn and several subsidiaries against the General Court judgment upholding the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2011 authorising dawn raids at Deutsche Bahn premises on 29 March 2011 and subsequent decisions authorising additional inspections following allegations that Deutsche Bahn (and its subsidiaries) had abused a dominant position. On 18 June 2015, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court judgment to the extent that it rejected Deutsche Bahn's plea alleging infringement of the rights of defence in view of the irregularities affecting the conduct of the first inspection and annulled the contested Commission decisions. The case focuses on the scope of the Commission's powers of investigation when ordering and carrying out unannounced inspections as well as the rights of companies subject to investigation. Parties Appellants: • Deutsche

CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 585/17 Dilly’s Wellnesshotel—a national reference from Austria seeking clarification on, amongst other things, an amendment to an approved aid scheme—whereby a Member State elects no longer to use the approval of that aid in connection with a particular group of beneficiaries, and thus simply reduces the level of aid granted under an existing aid measure—constitues an alteration of an aid scheme which is subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU. Latest developments On 14 November 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that: (i) Article 108(3) of the TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation that alters an aid scheme by restricting those eligible for such aid is, in principle, subject to the notification requirement laid down in that article; (ii) Article 58(1) of Commission Regulation 651/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Related/similar cases Case T-343/06 Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission Case T-348/06 Total Nederland v Commission Case T-362/06 Ballast

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 4 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals of the General Court judgments in Cases T- 185/16 and T- 186/15 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission’s decisions in State aid Cases SA.35842 and SA.35843—PSO compensation for Buonotourist and CSTP Azienda della Mobilità. Latest developments On 4 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Appellants:• Buonotourist S.r.L. (Buonotourist). Buonotourist is a private company providing local public transport services based on regional and municipal concessions. More specifically, Buonotourist operates a network of bus routes as concessionaire of the Italian region of Campania (the Region) throughout the period under review covering approximately 1.8m km per year• Consorzio Salernitano Trasporti Pubblici SpA (CSTP). CSTP is a public limited liability company providing local public transport services based on regional and municipal