CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the Commission’s decision in PC video games (geo-blocking) (AT.40413, AT.40414, AT.40420, AT.40422, AT.40424) which fined (amongst other parties) Valve €1.62m for entering into bilateral agreements with five video game publishers to restrict parallel trade within EU Member States by preventing customers from buying cheaper games available outside of the customer’s location or country of residence. Latest development On 27 September 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed Valve’s appeal in its entirety. The General Court found (amongst other things) that: (i) the Commission had correctly established the existence of an agreement or concerted practice between Valve and each of the five publishers; there was a by object restriction of parallel imports through geo-blocking of keys enabling activation and, in certain cases, use of the relevant video games on the Steam platform; (ii) the geo-blocking’s objective

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 March 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 1 February 2012 prohibiting the merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext (Case COMP/M.6166—Deutsche Börse/NYSE Euronext). On 9 March 2015, the General Court issued its judgment dismissing the action in its entirety. This matter is notable insofar as it involves a Commission decision prohibiting a merger—a relatively rare occurrence and particularly interesting given the transaction was approved by the US authorities. It also underscores the difficulty in trying to defend (or save) otherwise problematic mergers on efficiency grounds. Parties Applicant: Deutsche Börse AG (Deutsche Börse)Defendant: European Commission Deutsche Börse is a German-based company involved in all aspects of cash and derivatives markets. Deutsche Börse operates the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and also owns the majority of Eurex, the company that operates the Eurex Deutschland derivatives exchange. NYSE Euronext is a US-based company dual-listed in the

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by the Commission before the Court of Justice in Case C- 39/18 P7) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 November 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment (in whole or in part) and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 4 February 2015 finding six infringements of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines totalling €14.9m on international broker, Icap, for Icap's alleged facilitator role in relation to six cartels concerning the market for interest rate derivatives denominated in Japanese yen ('Yen interest rate derivatives cartels’). Outcome On 10 November 2017, the General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision (including the provision imposing a €14.96m fine) having identified a number of defects with the decision. In particular, the General Court was not satisfied that Icap’s participation could be confirmed in one of the cartels, that Icap’s

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission's decision of 23 February 2010 (the 'contested decision') refusing Reagens SpA access to certain documents in the Commission's administrative file from the 'Heat stabilisers' cartel investigation on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Reagens had been an addressee of the Commission decision of 11 November 2009 finding that it had participated in an EEA-wide cartel concerning heat stabilisers. Unlike another addressee of the Commission decision, Reagens was unsuccessful in a submission (initiated prior to the adoption of the infringement decision) for a reduction in fine based on ‘inability to pay’ arguments. Following the Commission decision, Reagens sought access to documents relating to applications for inability to pay in furtherance of its rights of defence. This request was ultimately rejected in the contested

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 May 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts Outline An appeal brought against the Commission’s decision to refuse to reimburse a fine in relation to its decisions in COMP/37.956 concerning the Reinforcing bars cartel. Outcome On 8 May 2019, the General Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, it ruled that the Commission’s 2009 re-adpoted decision must remain in force in respect of Lucchini because it had not itself appealed the underlying decision that was annulled by the Court of Justice. Therefore, Lucchini was ineligible to recover the cartel fine it paid for its part in the reinforcing bars cartel. Parties Appellant: • Lucchini SpA (Lucchini) • European Commission Lucchini SpA manufactures steel products. The Company produces steel products such as steel wire, rods, bars, and rail products, as well as wheelsets, cast, and forged products. Lucchini operates in Italy, France, Poland, Great Britain and Sweden. Background Background In

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 31 October 2108 which found that compensation granted by Lithuania to LITGAS for supplying a mandatory quantity of liquefied natural gas to the LGN terminal in Klaipėda was compatible with the State aid rules (SA.44678) Latest developments On 8 September 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it partially upheld the appeal. In particular, the General Court ruled that, when the Commission reviewed the Applicants’ complaint, it had ‘objective and consistent evidence of serious difficulties’ and thus should have launched an in-depth investigation. In addition, the General Court found that review of the compensation of certain costs was ‘incomplete, insufficient and inconsistent’. Parties Applicants:• Achema AB and Achema Gas Trade (together, Achema)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Commission’s 2013 decision On 20

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by Commission at Court of Justice in Case C- 265/17 P) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 30 January 2013 prohibiting the proposed acquisition of TNT by UPS (Case M.6570). On 7 March 2017, the General Court annulled the Commission decision on the basis of a procedural irregularity—namely, that the Commission infringed UPS’ rights of defence by relying on an econometric analysis which had not been discussed in its final form during the administrative procedure. This matter is notable insofar as it involves a Commission decision prohibiting a merger, a relatively rare occurrence (and even more rare such a prohibition then being overturned by the Courts—the last time this occurred was in 2002 when the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) annulled three prohibition decisions: Tetra Laval/Sidel, Airtours/First

CASE HUB See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action before the General Court against the Commission’s decision refusing a request to pay a cartel fine following annulment of the Commission’s decision in the heat stabilisers cartel (Case AT.38589. Latest developments On 9 February 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 the Commission had been entitled to refuse repayment on the basis that the legal basis for the fines was the original 2009 cartel decision and not the 2016 re-adopted amendment decision. The fines imposed on GEA in the 2009 decision were not repealed or replaced by the 2016 decision, which was merely an amending decision. The amendments made by the 2016 decision did not concern the amount of the fine to be paid by GEA, an amount which was definitively fixed by the Commission in the 2009 decision. The 2016 amendment decision only concerned the determination of the joint and several liability

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 21 January 2011 rejecting a complaint brought by Si.mobil on 14 August 2009 accusing Mobitel of abusive practices (contrary to Article 102 TFEU) on the basis that a national competition authority was already dealing with the case. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints when national competition authorities within the European Competition Network are already investigating the same issues. Parties Applicant: Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d (Si.mobil) Defendant: European Commission Si.mobil is a Slovenian mobile operator which provides both business and retail services to customers in Slovenia. Mobitel is a Slovenian mobile telecommunications company which is 100% owned by Telekom Slovenije. It provides a range of communications services to consumers in Slovenia. Background On 14 August 2009, Si.mobil lodged a complaint

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 301/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 February 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the Commission for recovery of interest retained by Commission following the reimbursement of a fine imposed in the envelopes cartel (AT.39780). Outcome On 12 February 2019, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it ordered the Commission to pay damages amounting to €184,592.95, equivalent to the amount of default interest between the original payment of the fine by Printeos and the repayment of the fine following its annulment, plus additional interest for its refusal to pay interest on the reimbursed cartel fine. Parties Applicant: Printeos, SA (Printeos), a Spanish envelope manufacturer. Defendant: European Commission. Background The Commission’s 2014 decision On 11 December 2014, following an agreement by all cartelists to settle, the Commission issued its infringement decision

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—28/03/2017 Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission's decision of 17 February 2015 decision rejecting Deutsche Telekom's request for access to documents in relation to an investigation into suspected abuse of dominance in Internet connectivity services (COMP/AT.40089—Deutsche Telekom). Deutsche Telekom had requested access (shortly after the Commission’s decision to close its Article 102 TFEU investigation in October 2014) in order to understand the reasons and motivation behind the Commission’s ultimately aborted review. As part of this, Deutsche Telekom sought access to internal Commission documents as well as input/communications from third parties. On 28 March 2017, the General Court dismissed Deutsche Telekom’s action for annulment in its entirety, in particular confirming that the Commission did not misapply the provisions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 when refusing Deutsche Telekom’s request for access to the Commission documents

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 850/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case T- 217/17 FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission—an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision to approve an aid scheme for installations producing renewable energy built in the Czech Republic between 2006 and 2012 (Case SA.40171). Latest developments On 20 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action. Parties Applicants:• FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. (a company based in the Czech Republic) and 27 other applicants (together, the Applicants) Defendant:• European Commission Background By a letter dated 16 December 2003, two Czech associations active in the renewable energy sector, the Czech Society for Wind Energy and Eurosolar, sent a complaint to the Commission, concerning a draft law of the Czech Republic seeking to promote electricity generated