CASE HUB (date of judgment—09/03/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 5 December 2012 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53(1) EEA and imposing combined fines of €150.8m on Samsung group companies for their alleged participation in two distinct cartels for the supply of cathode ray tubes ('TV and computer monitor tubes cartels').On 9 March 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety—thus confirming the fines imposed jointly and severally on Samsung SDI and Samsung SDI Malaysia. This matter is notable in that it remains one of the largest overall fines ever imposed for an EU antitrust infringement (even after reductions in fines were ordered by the General Court for certain other addressees). The appeal

CASE HUB (date of judgment—09/06/2016) 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Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 3 October 2007 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing a fine of €80.496m on Repsol 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 9 June 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety—in particular, confirming that the Commission (and the General Court in subsequently approving the Commission approach) had correctly interpreted the Leniency Notice in regards to the requirement to provide 'facts previously unknown to the Commission' in order to benefit from partial immunity. Parties Appellants: • Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades SA (Repsol Lubricantes)• Repsol Petróleo SA (Repsol Petróleo)•

CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 3 April 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie-a national reference from Poland seeking clarification on the principle of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) and how this is applied in parallel competition investigations. Latest developments On 3 April 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C- 617/17 Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczeń na Zycie S.A., a national reference from Poland seeking clarification on the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) and how it is applied in circumstances where a national competition authority (NCA) has imposed a fine on an undertaking for anti-competitive conduct based on the parallel application of national and EU competition law. In this ruling, the Court of Justice agreed with the opinion of Advocate General Wahl and found that antitrust

CASE HUB (date of judgment—18/01/2017) See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 January 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court only partially annulling the Commission decision of 5 December 2012 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and, thus, maintaining that Toshiba remain jointly and severally liable for the conduct of a former joint venture regarding the joint venture's direct participation in a cartel concerning the supply of the supply of cathode ray tubes ('TV tubes cartel'). On 18 January 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed Toshiba's appeal in its entirety, thus confirming the €82.8m fine imposed jointly and severally on Toshiba (along with Panasonic and Toshiba's former joint venture, Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co Ltd (MTPD)—now called MT Picture JV) for MTPD's participation in the cartel on the market for cathode ray tubes for TVs. The appeal focuses on issues

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 627/18 Nelson Antunes de Cunha v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP —a national reference from Portugal seeking clarification on, amongst other things, the limitation period for the exercise of the power to recover State aid applies (i) only to relations between the EU and the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed or (ii) whether it also applies to relations between that Member State and the opponent, as the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market. Latest developments On 30 April 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that national limitation periods for the recovery of unlawful State aid cannot be short than those under EU law. Parties • Nelson Antunes de Cunha (Nelson).•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—This archived case hub reflects the position at date judgment of 11 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline A national reference from Spain seeking clarification on, amongst other things, the effectiveness of the service of process relating to a damages claim in connection with the trucks cartel. Latest developments On 11 July 2024, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which is proposed that Article 1(1) of Regulation 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legal documents addressed to a parent company established in one member state from being validly served on a subsidiary of that company in another member state, even if the parent company forms an economic unit with its subsidiary. Article 101 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter do not alter that finding. Parties Applicant:• AB Volvo (hereafter, Volvo)Respondent:• Transsaqui S.L. Market Trucks. Background to reference Background In 2008, Transsaqui purchased two Volvo trucks.On 19 July 2016, the Commission issued a decision finding that a number

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 638/19 Commission v European Food and Others—appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 624/15 which upheld an action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.38517) concerning aid paid to Viorel and Ioan Micula and companies owned by them in the form of an arbitration award. Latest development On 25 January 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it On 25 January 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal, thereby setting aside the General Court’s judgment and referring the case back to the General Court.In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission lacked competence to examine, in the light of the law on state aid, the compensation Romania paid to Swedish investors

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Belgium seeking clarification on the compatibility with Articles 45 and 101 TFEU of certain provisions of FIFA on the Status and Transfer of Players. Latest developments On 30 April 2024, Advocate General Szpuanr issued his opinion in which he suggested that some of FIFA’s rules on the transfer of players may prove to be contrary to EU law. These rules are of restrictive nature and may only be justified in specific circumstances. Parties Applicants:• Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Defendants:• BZ Markets Football. Background to reference Background FIFA is the regulatory body for football. It has the objective of drawing up regulations and provisions governing the game of football and related matters and to ensure their enforcement.Under FIFA's statutes any national association which is responsible for organising and supervising football in a given country may become a member of FIFA provided, inter alia, that it is already a member of one of the six continental confederations recognised by FIFA. These include the Union des associations

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 April 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court finding that there was no need to adjudicate on the application for partial annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 October 2005 in relation to Mindo Srl's alleged participation in a purchasing cartel for Italian raw tobacco ('Italian raw tobacco' cartel). The case focuses on exposure to (and payment of) fines by a jointly and severally liable debtor as well as applicants demonstrating an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court. Parties Appellant: Mindo Srl (Mindo) Other party: European Commission Mindo is an Italian company, currently in liquidation, active in the first processing of raw tobacco (accounting for 11.28% of raw tobacco produced in Italy in 2001). The company directly implicated in the cartel activity was Dimon Italia Srl, a subsidiary of Dimon Inc. In September 2004, the whole of Dimon Italia Srl's

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 June 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related case. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by RF against a General Court order that dismissed RF’s action against its complaint regarding the Commission’s decision in Case AT.40251 concerning the rail, freight and forwarding sector. Outcome On 19 June 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed RF's action against a rejection of its complaint regarding the Commission’s decision in Case AT.40251 concerning the rail, freight and forwarding sector.Under Article 73(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on and time at which a full copy of the signed original of a procedural document is received at the Registry by telefax shall be deemed to be the date and time of lodging for the purposes of compliance with the procedural time limits, provided that the signed original of the procedural document is lodged at the Registry no later than

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 10 October 2007 finding that CB restricted competition with certain fees and tariffs which hindered the issuance of payment cards in France by new entrants. In particular, the appellant seeks to set aside the General Court judgment on the grounds that the Commission erred in law in the application of the concept of restriction of competition 'by object'. On 11 September 2014, the Court of Justice upheld CB’s appeal and set aside the General Court judgment on the basis that the General Court could not properly have concluded that the pricing measures adopted by CB had as ‘their object’ the restriction of competition. This case is notable insofar as it reviews the ‘by object’/’by effect’

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, case commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the French Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether certain concerted practices and joint arrangements pursued in respect of the production and marketing endive in France (amounting to conduct that would otherwise breach Article 101 TFEU and/or Member State equivalent) may nevertheless fall outside the prohibition on restrictive agreements on account of the agricultural sector's special features and importance in the EU (and, in particular, the precedence the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in principle, enjoys over competition law objectives under the TFEU). Outcome On 14 November 2017, the Court of Justice ruled (amongst other things) that endive 'producer organisations' (POs) and 'associations of producers organisations' (APOs) (both bodies through which farmers collectively coordinate activity