CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 819/19 Stichting Cartel Compensation and Ohters—a national reference from the Netherlands seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, national courts have the power to apply Article 101 TFEU (or at least Article 53 EEA) with regard to agreements/concerted practices of air carriers in respect of freight services on flights operated on various dates (ie before 01/05/2004, 19/05/2005 or 01/06/2002), as well as for the period that the transitional regime of Articles 104 and 105 TFEU applied. Latest developments On 11 November 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it agreed with Advocate General Bobek that a party allegedly injured by a cartel between air carriers for airfreight services on routes between airports within the EU and/or EEA, and between airports within those territories and third countries, can rely on the breach of Article 101(1) TFEU and

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 823/18 Commission v GEA Group—an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 640/16 which annulled the Commission's amended decision in the heat stabilisers cartel (AT.38589). Latest development On 25 November 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, in which it allowed the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and referred the case back to the General Court. Parties Appellant: European Commission (the Commission)Defendant: GEA Group AG (GEA), a German supplier of process technology for the food industry and a wide range of other industries. Market(s) Heat stabilisers – in solid or liquid form – are added to Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products in order to improve their thermal resistance. They also increase the plasticity, rigidity and transparency of final PVC products and protect them from decolouring. The Commission decisions

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 3 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Electrabel SA against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 10 June 2009 that imposed a fine on Electrabel SA for implementing a Community dimension 'concentration' in breach of the EU Merger Regulation's ‘stand-still obligation’—ie by acquiring de facto sole control of Compagnie Nationale du Rhône in December 2003 without first obtaining clearance from the Commission. This case focuses on the notification and stand-still obligations under the EU Merger Regulation and how failure to comply with these requirements brings with it the risk of substantial financial penalties. Parties Appellant: Electrabel SA (Electrabel)Other party: European Commission Electrabel is a Belgian company active in the production, sale, trading and operational management of networks in the electricity and natural gas sectors. At the material time it was part of the Suez group, an industrial

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case C- 857/19 Slovak Telekom—a national reference from Slovakia seeking clarification as to whether, amongst other things, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU also applies to administrative offences consisting of the abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU for which the Commission and the authority of a Member State have imposed sanctions separately and independently in the exercise of their powers under Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003. Latest developments On 25 February 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which ruled (amongst other things) that Slovak Telekom, which was found liable by the Commission for abuse of a dominant position on the market for certain telecommunication services, could also be subject to sanctions imposed by the Slovak competition authorities for such abuse on the market for other telecommunication services. Parties Applicant:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 October 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary andrelated/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 882/19 Sumal, SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L—a national reference from Spain seeking clarification as to whether liability for anti-trust damages can be extended downwards from the parent company to the subsidiary. Latest developments On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it recommended that the victim of an infringement of EU competition law committed by a parent company may seek compensation from that company’s subsidiary for the resulting loss. For this to be the case, the Court of Justice specified victim must prove that the two companies constituted an economic unit at the time of the infringement. Parties Applicant:• Sumal, SL (Sumal)Respondent:• Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L. (MB Trucks) Market Trucks. Background to reference Background Sumal lodged a claim against MB Trucks for the sum of €

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 and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 105/17 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 7 December 2016 finding infringements and imposing fine on three banks that did not settle in relation to their participation in a cartel in the Euro Interest Rate Derivative (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914) Outcome On the 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it partially upheld HSBC’s appeal, thereby setting aside the General Court’s judgment in these respects. However, the Court of Justice considered it was in a position to give final on the matter (rather than referring it back to the General Court). In doing so, the Court of Justice dismissed HSBC’s action. Parties Appellants:• HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France (together, HSBC or the appellants)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission)

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing garantovaná's action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 22 July 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a fine of €19.6m in relation to garantovaná's alleged participation in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007 ('Calcium carbide cartel'). This appeal focuses primarily on issues relating to the calculation of fine (and, in particular, whether the correct 'preceding business year' was used by the Commission in its calculation of the fine imposed on garantovaná). Parties Appellant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (garantovaná) Defendant: European Commission Novácke chemické závody a.s. (NCHZ), a company established in Slovakia, produced (amongst other things) calcium carbide. During the period of the alleged infringement, more than 70% of NCHZ was owned, directly or indirectly, by garantovaná. garantovaná is a Slovakian based investment company not directly

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 November 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further,timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 778/19 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision finding that aid awarded by Poland to Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A, the operator of the A2 motorway was illegal and should be repaid (SA.35356) Latest developments On 11 November 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The Court of Justice dismissed all Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A,’s arguments alleging that the General Court had erred in finding that the Commission had correctly applied the private investor test and in establishing that Autostrada Wielkopolska had received an economic advantage. None of Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A,’s arguments cast doubt on the conclusion that the that the private market investor principle did not apply in this case. A private operator in Poland’s situation would not,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Philips against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 (Case AT.39226) which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Philips for its alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed Philips’ appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant:• Koninklijke Philips NV (Philips)• Philips France SAS (Philips France)Defendant: • European Commission Philips, based in the Netherlands, is an international technology company also active in the production and supply of smart card chips. Market(s) The supply of smart card chips in the EEA. Smart card chips are used in mobile telephone SIM cards, bank cards, identity cards and passports, pay TV cards, and various

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—case referred back to the General Court (Case T- 758/14 RENV) See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Infineon against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission’s decision of 3 September 2014 (Case AT.39226) which found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposed fines on Infineon for its alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of smart card chips. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it partially upheld the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgement and referred the case back to the General Court. In particular, the Court of Justice concluded that the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 758/14 was vitiated by an error of law as regards the General Court’s exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction. Parties Applicant:• Infineon Technologies AG (Infineon)Defendant:

CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/03/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 13 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 24 May 2012 which rejected Evonik Degussa GmbH's request for confidential treatment of information (provided by Degussa in the course of leniency) set to be included in the published version of the 'Hydrogen peroxide and perborate cartel' decision. On 14 March 2017, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court judgment insofar as the General Court erred in holding that the Commission’s hearing officer was correct to decline competence to answer objections (raised by Degussa claiming a breach of the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations) to the proposed publication of a detailed, non-confidential version of the decision. On the basis of the appeal being well founded (and the Court of Justice entitled, therefore,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Latvia seeking clarification on numerous issues regarding the interpretation of an ‘undertaking in difficulty’ within the context of the State aid rules. Latest developments On 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled:• the concept of subscribed capital in Article 2(18)(a) GBER must be interpreted, as regards the definition of ‘an undertaking in difficulty’, as referring to all the contributions that current and future partners or shares of a company have performed or have committed themselves to perform• Article 3(3) of Regulation 1301/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a tenderer is not ‘an undertaking in difficulty’ within the meaning of Article 2(18) of Regulation 651/2014, the competent managing authority need only take into account evidence which complies with the requirements laid down when establishing the project selection procedure, provided that these