CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 3 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 75/18 Vodafone Magyarország—a national reference from Hungary seeking clarification as to whether (amongst other tax related issues) the progressive taxation of economically strong undertakings constitutes unlawful State aid in favour of weaker undertakings Latest developments On 21 January 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. Parties • Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. (Vodafone). Vodafone is a public limited company based in Hungary. The sole shareholder of Vodafone is Vodafone Europe BV, a company registered in the Netherlands. Market Telecommunications. Background to reference The present matter arose following a tax inspection of Vodafone for the period between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2015. After carrying out this inspection, the Finanzverwaltung (the Hungarian tax authority) highlighted a tax discrepancy of HUF 8.371m to be paid by Vodafone and, as a result, additional tax surcharges and fines. Since an appeal against

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 April 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's order in Case T- 19/21 dismissing an action for annulment against the Commission’s decision to carve Italy out of the scope of its investigation in Case AT.40703—Amazon—Buy Box. Outcome On 20 April 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant:• Amazon.com Inc, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl and Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (together, Amazon)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 10 November 2020, the Commission launched an investigation into alleged preferential treatment of Amazon's own retail offers and those of marketplace sellers that use Amazon's logistics and delivery services (AT.40703).The Commission's investigation covered the whole of the EEA other than Italy as the Italian competition authority was already investigating similar issues, with a focus on the Italian market.For further detail and commentary regarding

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 April 2021; it is no longer maintained.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 Case C-847/19 Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission–appeal of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-417/16 which dismissed an action for the annulment of the European Commission decision of 20 November 2013 finding that aid granted for the construction of the Lithuanian LNG Terminal in the Klaipéda Seaport was compatible with the State aid rules (Case SA.36740). Latest developments On 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicants:• Achemos Grupé UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) and • Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (together, the Applicants)Defendant:• European Commission Background Background to the dispute On 18 January 2007, the Lithuanian Parliament approved the national energy strategy for 2008–2012 which highlighted the need to look into the possibility of building a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Klaipéda Seaport (the LNG Terminal) in order to ensure an alternative

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 Case C-890/19 Fortischem v Commission–an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-121/15 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 which found, amongst other things, that a Slovakian chemical company (NCHZ), the predecessor company of Fortischem, benefitted from unlawful State aid during its bankruptcy procedure (Case SA.33797). Latest developments On 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which is dismissed the action in it entirety, thereby upholding the Commission’s 2014 decision. Parties Applicants:• Fortischem a.s. (Fortischem)Defendant:• European Commission Background Background On 22 July 2009, the Commission fined Novácké chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze (NCHZ) €19.6m for participating in a cartel on the markets for calcium carbide (AT.39396). It should be noted that NCHZ’s appeal against this fine was ultimately dismissed by the General Court on 12 December 2012 (see Case T- 352/09).On

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 27/17 AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’—a national reference from Lithuania seeking clarification as to the application of the Brussels Regulation to abusive behaviour under Article 102 TFEU, in particular in relation to the place where harm occurred. Latest developments On 5 July 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment Case C-27/17, a national reference from the Court of Appeal in Lithuania in relation to the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) to anticompetitive and abusive behaviour under Article 102 TFEU. In this ruling, the Court of Justice found that the Brussels Regulation has to be interpreted insofar as that (i) the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ (Article 5(3) Brussels Regulation) is in particular the place of materialisation of a loss of profit, ie the place of the market affected by

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 19 April 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Portuguese Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking clarification as to the requirements for establishing a 'discriminatory pricing' claim under Article 102(c) TFEU—including confirmation as to whether any identified restrictive effects must be 'appreciable' in order to trigger the prohibition. The reference arises in the context of national proceedings in Portugal concerning a dispute between MEO—Serviços de Comunicações e Multimedia SA (the consumer brand of Portugal Telecom, Portugal’s principle telecommunications operator ) and the Portuguese Competition Authority. MEO is contesting the rejection of a complaint it brought against the Portuguese royalty-collecting society, Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes (GDA), alleging that GDA’s charging of discriminatory wholesale tariffs for artists’ rights licences amounted to an abuse of GDA’s dominant position (within

CASE HUB (date of judgment—31/05/2018) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 31 May 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 633/16 Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet —a national reference from Denmark seeking clarification as to the application of the EU Merger Regulation’s standstill obligation (under Article 7) to the merger between Ernst & Young and KPMG Denmark and the related ending of a cooperation agreement between KPMG Denmark and the KPMG network. Latest developments On 31 May 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) of the EU Merger Regulation applies only to transactions which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contributes to the change in control of the target undertaking. Further, the Court of Justice clarified that the termination of a cooperation agreement (such as the one in the present proceedings) may not be regarded as bringing about the implementation

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the French Cour de cassation to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU regarding the application of the Commission’s Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance (or 'De Minimis Notice') and whether the market share thresholds specified are binding on National authorities. Parties • Expedia Inc • Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) • Cour de cassation (France) Market(s) Online travel agency services in France. Background to reference The reference was made by the French Cour de cassation as part of a dispute it was adjudicating between Expedia, the on-line international travel agency, and the French Competition Authority. Expedia had formed a joint venture called ‘Agence VSC’ with Société nationale des chemins de fer (SNCF), the French national railway company, for the sale of rail tickets and other travel services.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the Danish Sø- og Handelsret (a national maritime and commercial court) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify (amongst other things) whether, for the purposes of assessing the anticompetitiveness of rebate schemes under Article 102 TFEU, it is legally necessary to carry out a price/cost analysis in which the commercial conduct of the dominant undertaking is compared with that of an equal competitor (the ‘as-efficient-competitor’ test) and, furthermore, whether any exclusionary effect produced by the rebate scheme must be 'appreciable' in order for it to fall within Article 102 TFEU. On 6 October 2015, the Court of Justice ruled that the demonstration of an abuse in relation to a rebate scheme does not require the application of a price/cost analysis (such as the ‘as-efficient-competitor' test), nor does the exclusionary effect

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 June 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal brought by FLS Plast A/S against the judgment of the General Court dismissing FLS Plast's action for partial annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005 that imposed a fine on its parent—FLSmidth, and FLS Plast, for their participation in a cartel for the supply of industrial plastic bags in the EEA ('Industrial bags cartel').This case focuses, amongst other things, on the imputability of a subsidiary's illegal behaviour to its parent and issues regarding (and the implications of) allegedly excessive duration of contentious proceedings before the Courts.  Parties Appellant: FLS Plast A/S (Plast) Other party: European Commission FLSmidth & Co A/S (FLSmidth) is a Danish company and parent company of a group of companies operating in the engineering, mining and construction sectors. One of those companies is Plast, which is itself the former parent company of Trioplast Wittenheim SA (Trioplast), which

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 January 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Opinion and Judgment • Case C‑286/11 P Commission v Tomkins, opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 19 July 2012 • Case C‑286/11 P Commission v Tomkins, judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 January 2013 Relevant/related

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 February 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National reference from the from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia), to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether it is material (to the Article 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU assessment) that a competitor, who is excluded through the collusive conduct of others, is nevertheless operating illegally on the relevant market in question. On 7 February 2013, the Court of Justice ruled (amongst other things) that the alleged illegality of Akcenta’s activity in Slovakia is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition is triggered. Parties • Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s. (Slovenská sporiteľňa)• Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Slovakian Competition Authority)• Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic—the referring court)Slovenská sporiteľňa is the largest commercial bank in Slovakia, providing banking services to more than 2 million clients and with over 400 retail outlets.