CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of judgment of 1 August 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Germany seeking clarification on whether the Commission’s infringement decision against a number of truck manufactures (Trucks—AT.39824) must be interpreted as meaning that special-purpose/specialised vehicles, in particular refuse collection vehicles, are also covered by the findings of that decision. Latest developments On 1 August 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it suggested that the Commission’s infringement decision must be interpreted as meaning that specialised trucks, including household refuse collection trucks, fell within the scope of the products covered by the cartel found in that decision. Parties Applicant:• Landkreis Northeim (LN)Defendant:• Daimler AG (Daimler) Market Trucks. Background to reference Background The Commission carried out dawn raids in January 2011 following an immunity application made by MAN. On 20 November 2014, the Commission issued a statement of objections.On 19 July 2016, the Commission issued a decision finding that a number of truck manufacturers, including

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, related/similar cases and commentary Case facts Outline Case C- 594/18 P Austria v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 356/15 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision which found that modified UK measures to support the construction and operation of Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant were compatible with State aid rules (Case SA.34947). Latest development On 22 September 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant:• Republic of Austria (Austria)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Nuclear power. Background Background On 22 October 2013, the UK notified the Commission of aid in support of the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset; namely Hinkley Point C (HPC). That aid, which is made up of three parts,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 595/17 Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA (acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com)—a national reference from France seeking clarification as to the application of Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) to jurisdiction clauses agreed in private contracts to private actions for damages based on Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 24 October 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in Case C- 595/17, a national reference from the Cour de Cassation in France in relation to the applicability of jurisdiction clauses agreed in private contracts to private actions for damages based on Article 102 TFEU under Article 23 of Regulation 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation). The Court of Justice found that a jurisdiction clause that does not explicitly refer to claims based on alleged infringements of competition law can nevertheless apply to claims

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 595/18 The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 419/14 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Latest development On 27 January 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that a parent company holding 100% of the voting rights (rather than 100% of the capital/shareholding) can be held liable for the cartelistic conduct of its subsidiary. Parties Appellant:• The Goldman Sachs Group (GS)Interveners: • Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Prysmian)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Underground and submarine high-voltage power cables. These cables are typically used to connect electrical generation

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 599/18 P Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 438/14 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Silec Cable for its participation in a cartel in the market for high-voltage power cables (AT.39610). Latest development On 14 November 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellants:• Silec Cable SAS, General Cable Corp. (together, Silec). Silec is active in the underground and submarine power cable production and supply sector.Defendant:• European Commission Note—by way of background, from 20 May 1998 to 11 May 2005, Sagem SA (Sagem) was active on the underground power cable

CASE HUB (ARCHIVE 21/01/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by GALP against the judgment of the General Court upholding (on substance though reducing slightly the individual fine imposed) the Commission decision of 3 October 2007 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing an individual fine of €8.66m on GALP (reduced to €8.28m following General Court judgment) for its alleged participation in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel concerning the supply of bitumen in Spain between 1991 and 2002 ('Spanish bitumen cartel'). On 21 January 2016, the Court of Justice upheld GALP's appeal and set aside the General Court judgment insofar as the General Court had fixed a new fine based on errors in finding that GALP was 'aware' of (and therefore liable for) the participation of other cartel members in a particular aspect of the cartel. However,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 April 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from the Czech Republic seeking clarification concerning the application of Directive 2014/104 (the Damages Directive) in the context of a damages claim commenced against Google LLC for alleged breach of Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 18 April 2024, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it held that the former Czech rules on limitation are incompatible with EU law. They make the exercise of the right to claim compensation for the harm suffered as a result of an infringement of competition law practically impossible or excessively difficult. Parties Applicant:• Heureka Group a.s. (Heureka)Defendant:• Google LLC (Google) Markets Pirce comparison services. Background to reference Background Heureka is a company that operates on the market in the sale price comparison services in the Czech Republic. It brought an action before the Czech courts seeking

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentaryrelated/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 606/18 P Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 449/14 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Latest development On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety (closely following the opinion of General Kokott). The Court of Justice held that the General Court was correct to conclude that there was no error of law in relation to either the way the Commission conducted the dawn raid and the calculation of the fine. Parties Appellant:• Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA (together, Nexans). Nexans is a French based company that manufacturers electrical components. It

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 May 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 607/18 NKT Verwaltung and NKT v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 447/14 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Latest development On 14 May 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgement in which it partially upheld the appeal. The Court of Justice found that the General Court had erred in: (i) rejecting an argument relating to breach of NKT's rights of defence; (ii) finding that the Commission had established that NKT was aware of, or could reasonably have foreseen, the aspect of the cartel concerning a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel; and (iii) finding that NKT had participated in another aspect

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 608/19 INAIL—a national reference from Italy seeking clarification on whether, amongst other thing, the ‘de minimis State-aid rules allow for an applicant for State aid to avoid exceeding the maximum amount of support permitted by modifying a project or forgoing previous financial assistance. Latest developments On 28 October 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it confirmed that an undertaking receiving aid may request a modification of aid up to the point at which aid is granted or renounce previous aid to ensure it remains below the de minimis ceiling; however, aid is granted when a decision to award aid is made, not when payment is made. Parties Applicant: Istituto nazionale per assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work Defendant: Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C. (Zennaro) Market Timber

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 611/18 Pirelli & C. v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 455/14 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Outcome On 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant:• Pirelli & C. SpA (hereafter, Pirelli)Defendant: • European Commission (hereafter, the Commission)Pirelli’s corporate structure Pirelli (formerly Pirelli SpA) is an Italian-based company. Between 18 February 1999 and 28 July 2005, Pirelli was the parent company of Pirelli Cavi e Sistemi SpA (hereafter, PirelliCS) and subsequently of Pirelli Cavi e Sistemi Energia SpA (hereafter, PirelliCSE), which operated in the submarine and underground electrical cables sector. On 28 July 2005, Pirelli sold PirelliCSE to GSCP Athena

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Commentary The case is a reminder that the Commission must state clearly and unambiguously the capacity in which