CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 May 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by Quinn Barlo against the judgment of the General Court dismissing its action for annulment of the Commission decision of 31 May 2006 that imposed a fine on Quinn Barlo for its alleged participation in a global cartel for the supply of acrylic glass ('Acrylic glass cartel').On 30 May 2013, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in its entirety. This matter focuses (amongst other things) on issues regarding calculation of fines and the Court's exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction in adjusting/imposing fines (even where that may be at odds with the Commission fining guidelines). Parties Appellants: • Quinn Barlo Ltd (Quinn Barlo)• Quinn Plastics NV (Quinn Plastics) • Quinn Plastics GmbH Other party: European Commission The appellants are part of the Irish conglomerate Quinn Group Ltd. The appellants are the result of the integration of the activities

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, related/relevant cases and commentary Case facts Outline National reference from the Lithuanian Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify the factors which need to be taken into account when determining whether travel companies (agents) using in a common computerised platform have breached Article 101 TFEU. In particular, the reference seeks to clarify whether Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that participation in a common information system creates a presumption that the participating undertakings knew (or should have known) about discount restrictions applied by that system and, therefore, implicitly agreed to restrict price competition amongst themselves (ie through a 'concerted practice'). On 21 January 2016, the Court of Justice ruled that a concerted practice may have been established in circumstances where the

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court acceded to an application to try two separate actions at the same time, which had been pursued separately and along differing timelines but where there was significant overlap between the two cases. The court examined both the jurisdictional basis for the application, and the application of that power to the highly unusual fact-pattern of the two cases. Written by Andrew Stafford QC, partner, at Kobre & Kim (UK) LLP.

Case Study A car park has a third floor walkway which connects over a road to another piece of land owned by a third party. The local search does not show that this is public right of way. There is no reference to the right to use this walkway in either the dominant or servient land registered titles. Does this mean that the right has fallen away? Is there any legislation or HM Land Registry procedure or protocol that requires that in order to be valid and enforceable rights of way must be registered on title? And if not registered, can a class of people apply for a walkway to become a public right of way under the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832) and if so, what is the process they would have to follow? An easement may be established by long use by statute (PA 1832). See Practice Note: Acquisition of easements by long use for more information. However,

Facts Sharon and Lee have been married for 30 years and have two children. Lee at 75 years old, is now struggling with his mobility and it has been assessed that his needs can best be met in a nursing home, as Sharon is unable to care for him at home. They own their own home as joint tenants without a mortgage and have savings of £60,000 in Lee’s name and £30,000 in Sharon’s name. Lee has a net annuity of £25,000 per annum and Sharon has a net annuity of £10,000 per annum and they both receive the state pension, Lee at £184.90 per week (annually £9614.80) and Sharon receives a lower amount of £82.40 per week (annually £4,284.80). Lee’s pensions are paid into their joint account and used to fund the household bills. They have annual outgoings of: Utility Bill Annual cost Gas and Electricity £3,120 Water £700 Council Tax £2,800 Broadband and telephone £360 Window cleaner £480 Gardener £480 House repairs

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 806/19 P and C- 883/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the Commission's decision of 7 December 2016 finding infringements and imposing fines on three banks that did not settle in relation to their participation in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it largely upheld the Commission's findings that HSBC Holdings plc participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. However, the General Court annulled the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc on the basis that the Commission had given ‘insufficient reasons’ as to how it calculated the fine. Parties Applicants:• HSBC Holdings plc (London, United Kingdom)• HSBC Bank

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 890/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment of the Commission decision of 15 October 2014 which found, amongst other things, that a Slovakian chemical company (NCHZ) benefitted from unlawful State aid during its bankruptcy procedure (Case SA.33797). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action and upheld the Commission’s 2014 decision. In particular, the General Court dismissed Fortischem’s argument that its predecessor company NCHZ had not received anything more because it was deemed a strategic company than if the usual insolvency rules had been applied and that the Commission was correct to find the Fortischem was the economic successor of NCHZ and therefore responsible for repaying the unlawful aid. Parties Applicants:• Fortischem a.s. (Fortischem)Defendant:• European Commission Background Background

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020 imposing a reduced fine totalling €9.4m (AT.39563) Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the General Court held (amongst other things) that: (i) CCPL understood the Commission's reasoning and that the evidence put forward by CCPL was not sufficient to rebut the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over the companies of the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission made no error in concluding that since a reduction in the fine can only be justified by the objective of avoiding irreparably endangering the economic viability of the undertaking concerned and depriving its assets of any value, the applicant's intention to develop operating companies of the

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 14/24 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and imposing a fine on Bulgarian Energy Holding ts gas supply subsidiary Bulgargas EAD and its gas infrastructure Bulgartransgaz EAD for abusing their dominant positions by blocking competitors’ access to key gas supply infrastructure in Bulgaria (AT.39849). Outcome On 25 October 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal. In particular, it found (amongst other things) that the Commission committed errors in finding abuse of dominance and the breach of the rights of defence. Parties • Applicants: Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD (BEH), Bulgartransgaz EAD, Bulgargaz EAD (together, BEH Group).• Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Background BEH is 100% owned by the Bulgarian State. It owns subsidiaries

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 March 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts CASE HUB (date of judgments—17/03/2013) Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and reductions in the level of individual fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and imposing combined fines of €131.51m on five company groups (including the three applicants) for their alleged participation in a global cartel for the supply of marine hose between 1986 and 2007 ('Marine hoses cartel').On 17 March 2013, the General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision in relation to all of the applicants and also reduced the fine imposed on Parker insofar as the Commission had not established that Parker ITR should be liable for the whole duration of the alleged

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 284/21 P See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 4 July 2017 finding that Italy’s plan to support the recapitalisation of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena was compatible with the State aid rules (SA.47677). Latest developments On 24 February 2021, the General Court issued a preliminary judgment in which it dismissed the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility. The General Court held that the bondholders (a representative and holders of FRESH bonds) have standing to challenge the Commission’s 2017 decision because State aid approval was conditional on the bondholders also bearing significant costs. Parties Applicants:• Anthony Bresch• Trinity Investments DAC• Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP• Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP• Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund, and• Byrook Capital Badminton Fund LP(together, the Applicants)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 27 November 2013, the Commission approved restructuring aid granted to Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) on the basis of BMPS’s restructuring plan

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases For details on all current General Court appeals, see further General Court—appeals tracker. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission clearance decision of 28 August 2009 approving (with conditions) Lufthansa's acquisition of Austrian Airlines (Case COMP/M.5440—Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines). On 13 May 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. This matter underscores the difficulty in challenging merger clearance decisions. Parties Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Niki Luftfahrt)Defendant: European Commission Niki Luftfahrt is an Austrian low-cost airline and a subsidiary of Air Berlin. It is headquartered at Vienna International Airport and, at the material time, operated a competing air service on a number of routes affected by the merger. It runs an airline known as ‘FlyNiki’ or ‘Niki’. with the latter operating from Vienna, Linz, Salzburg, Graz and Innsbruck (Austria) with flights to destinations across Europe and North Africa.