CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision on 19 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Italy seeking clarification seeking clarification as to what structural links must exist between the producer and its intermediaries for those parties to be classified as a single economic entity under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and the standard of proof incumbent on the competition authorities in order to determine the existence of exclusionary abusive conduct under Article 102 TFEU. Latest developments On 19 January 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it recommended (amongst other things) that: (i) Article 102 must be interpreted as meaning that the actions of distributors forming part of the distribution network for goods and services of a producer in a dominant position may be imputed to that producer if it is established that those actions were not adopted independently by those distributors, but form part of a policy that is decided

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Belgium seeking clarification on the application of Article 101 TFEU to certain rules governing football. Latest developments On 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment and suggested that the rules of UEFA and the Belgian FA on ‘home grown players could infringe EU competition law. Parties Applicants:• UL.• SA Royal Antwerp Football ClubDefendant:• Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL Market Football Background to reference Background UL is a football player, born in 1986, who holds the nationality of a third country as well as Belgian nationality. He has been professionally active in Belgium for many years. He played for Royal Antwerp, a professional football club based in Belgium, for several years and is now playing for another professional football club in Belgium.UEFA is an association governed by Swiss law, based in Nyon (Switzerland).

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 June 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Opinion and Judgment Case C-681/11 Schenker and others, opinion of Advocate-General Kokott delivered on 28 February 2013 Case C-681/11 Schenker and others, judgment

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 and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 686/18 Adusbef and Others—a national reference from Italy essentially seeking clarification as to whether a national provision—which requires (amongst other things) a co-operative bank to be converted into a private company if it exceeds a certain asset threshold—breaches Article 107 TFEU. Latest developments On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the competition aspects of the reference (ie Question 3) as inadmissible. In particular, the Court of Justice concluded that the Council of State did not provide it with the information to enable it to assess whether the measure in question could be classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Parties Applicants:• OC and others, Adusbef, Federconsumatori, PB and others, QA and others (together, the Applicants)Defendants:• Banca d’Italia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Presidency of the Council of Ministers) and

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 138/15 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.34646) concerning a Dutch e-procurement platform. Latest developments On 7 November 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellants:• Aanbestedingskalender BV (Aanbestedingskalender)• Negometrix BV (Negometrix)• CTM Solution BV (CTM Solution)• Stillpoint Applications BV (Stillpoint Applications)• Huisinga Beheer BV (Huisinga Beheer)Respondent:• European Commission Background Background On 6 April 2012, the Commission received a complaint concerning alleged aid granted by the Dutch authorities for the creation and introduction of the e-procurement platform ‘TenderNed’, which is aimed at supporting the public procurement process from the publication of the notice to the award of the contract. The complaint was submitted on behalf of Stichting Crow, Negometrix , CTM Solution and Stillpoint Applications

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 523/15 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning a retail food packaging trays cartel (AT.39563). Latest development On 15 April 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant:• Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek Kft., Petruzalek sro, Petruzalek sro (together, the Appellants)• Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Retail food packaging trays. Rigid retail food packaging trays are made of either polystyrene foam or polypropylene. They are used for packaging food sold in shops or supermarkets, eg cheese, meat, fish or cake. Although the cost of each tray is minimal (a few Euro cents each), retailers use billions of trays every year. The geographical scope

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 275/20 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision in the pre-stressing cartel (COMP/38.344) (as amended by Commission decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and Commission decision C(2011) final of 4 April 2011). Outcome On 4 July 2024, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice held that, as the fine set by the General Court, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction , was not new, it had been payable since 4 January 2011. Parties Applicants:• Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (WDI)• Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (WDV)• Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (Pampus)(together, the Applicants)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Following an application for immunity lodged by DWK/Saarstahl on 18 June 2002 (and supplemented

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Action brought by the Commission against Spain, claiming that Spain failed, during the period prescribed to it by the Commission, to take measures to recover aid declared incompatible with the internal market. The illegal aid related to State aid granted to Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA. Latest development On 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld the Commission's action for failure to fulfil obligations, finding that, on the expiry of the time-limit set by the Commission, Spain had not taken the measures necessary to recover the illegal aid. The Court of Justice also found that Spain failed to inform the Commission of the measures taken within the prescribed period following the notification of the Commission's decision Parties Applicant:• European Commission (the Commission)Defendant:• Spain Market(s) Digital terrestrial television Background Background During the 2005–2008 period, Spain adopted a

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's order n Case T- 472/20 dismissing an action against the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2020 rejecting a complaint by Mr Frédéric Jouvin alleging anti-competitive collusion by a cartel comprising a number of companies involved in the postal and distribution and delivery sector (Commission Decision C(2020) 3503 final). Outcome On 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety as partially unfounded and partially inadmissible. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that Mr Jouvin does not identify any error of law allegedly vitiating the order under appeal. The Court of Justice recalled that, in the context of an appeal, the Court of Justice cannot, without invoking a distortion of the facts, review the assessment of the facts and the evidence carried out by the General Court,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 October 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 721/20 DB Station & Service—national reference from Germany seeking clarification as to whether Directive 2001/14 precludes national courts from reviewing charges levied based on Article 102 TFEU independently of the monitoring carried out by the regulatory body. Latest developments On 27 October 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled Parties Applicants:• DB Station & Service AG (DB). DB, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn AG (the incumbent railway operator in Germany), operates railway stations in Germany.Respondent• ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH (ODEG). ODEG is a railway undertaking that uses DB's infrastructure for its short-distance passenger rail transport activity. Market Passenger rail services. Background to reference Background The conditions of use of DB’s railway stations are determined in framework contracts that DB concludes with railway undertakings. Each specific use of this infrastructure

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Case C- 724/17 Vantaan Kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions and others-a national reference from Finland seeking clarification on clarification on whether, in the context of a damages action, a company, which has continued the economic activity of a cartel participant, may be held liable for breach of Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 6 February 2019, Advocate General Wahl delivered his opinion in which he stated concluded that Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in determining the person liable to pay damages for harm caused by a breach of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of economic continuity must be applied so that, in a private damages claim before a national court, an individual can seek compensation from a company that has continued the economic activity of a cartel participant. Parties •

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 November 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 425/18 partially dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24 April 2018 fining Altice Europe €124.5m for implementing its acquisition of PT Portugal prior to notifying and receiving clearance by the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). Outcome On 9 November 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it largely dismissed the appeal. In particular, the Court of Justice held that the General Court did not err: (i) in holding the Commission was entitled to impose a fine for breach of Articles 4(1) and (7(1) EUMR; (ii) in finding that the veto rights in the pre-closing covenants were sufficient to constitute implementation of the concentration for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and Article 7(1) EUMR.However, the Court of Justice found that the