CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 466/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 May 2021; it is no longer maintained.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 July 2017 finding that public support by Germany to Frankfurt-Hahn airport did not constitute unlawful State aid (Case SA.45765) Latest developments On 19 May 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which partially upheld the appeal. As a result, the General Court annulled the Commission’s 2017 decision. Parties Applicants:• Deutsche Lufthansa AG (hereafter, Deutsche Lufthansa)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Frankfurt-Hahn airport is a regional airport located in the German State (Land) of Rhineland-Palatinate, approximately 120km west of the city Frankfurt/Main. In 2016, the airport's traffic was around 2.6m passengers and 72,600 tonnes of cargo. Frankfurt-Hahn airport is currently loss-making. Since 2009, it has been controlled by the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate, which on 1 March

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 563/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 May 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline An appeal against the Commission’s infringement decision regarding the car battery recycling cartel (Case AT.40018), seeking a reduction of the fines imposed against Recyclex and other undertakings belonging to the same group. Outcome On 23 May 2019, the General Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The General Court found in particular that Recyclex was not entitled to further reductions under the Leniency Notice, and that the Commission was entitled to increase all cartelists’ fines by 10% to take account of the fact that the car battery recycling cartel had been a purchasing cartel. Parties Appellants: • Recylex SA• Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA • Harz-Metall GmbH (altogether ‘Recyclex’)Defendant: • European Commission Background Recylex is a group of undertakings that is active in

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C-492/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 June 2021; it is no longer maintained.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 4 December 2017 approving compensation granted by Italy to public hospitals in the Lazio Region in Italy (Case SA.39913). Latest developments On 2 June 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the General Court: (i) dismissed claims that the Commission’s decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons; and (ii) that the Commission had made an error in finding that the Italian healthcare services were not exercised by an undertaking and therefore there was no state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU involved in the remuneration of the public healthcare services Parties Applicant:•

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 611/22 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 19 April 2021 to accept a referral request under Article 22 EUMR in relation to the acquisition by Illumina, Inc. of GRAIL, Inc. (M.10188) Latest development On 13 July 2022 the General Court issued its judgment, which dismissed Illumina’s action in its entirety. Amongst other things, the General Court dismissed Illumina’s claims that: (i) the Commission lacked competence under Article 22 EUMR to examine a concentration which is the subject of a referral request made by a Member State which has a national merger control system, but where in the circumstances that concentration does not fall within the scope of that national legislation; (ii) the referral request was made out of time and, in the alternative, that the principles of

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases and commentary Case facts Outline An appeal to the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 24 January 2022 which imposed a fine on Qualcomm for abusing a dominant position in the global market for 4G Long-Term Evolution baseband chipsets by making significant exclusivity payments to Apple on the basis that it would not source supplies from competitors (Case AT.40220). Latest development On 15 June 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it the upheld the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the General Court observed that a number of procedural irregularities affected Qualcomm’s rights of defence and invalidated the Commission’s analysis of the conduct alleged against Qualcomm. Parties Appellant:• Qualcomm, Inc (Qualcomm): Qualcomm, a US-based company, designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services from 157 locations throughout the world. It is the world's largest supplier

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 11 April 2020 approving a Swedish loan guarantee scheme to support airlines under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COvID-19 outbreak (SA.56812). Latest developments On 17 February 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The General Court held (amongst other things) that limitation of the grant of aid only to airlines based in Sweden was appropriate and proportionate, and that the conditions of the scheme did not go beyond what was necessary to achieve their objectives. The objectives of the scheme were in line with either Article 107(3)(b) or Article 107(2)(b). Parties Applicant:• Ryanair DAC (Ryanair)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 3 April 2020, Sweden notified

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, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the car battery recycling cartel, seeking annulment of the infringement decision imposing a fine (Case AT.40018). Latest developments On 7 November 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it found that the Commission was correct to conclude that Campine had participated in an unlawful cartel. However, the General Court concluded that: (i) the Commission’s determination on Campine’s involvement in the cartel for a 22 month period lacked evidence; and (ii) Campine deserved a higher fine reduction to reflect its minor role in the cartel. Accordingly, the General Court reduced Campine’s original fine from €8.1m to €4.3m. Parties Applicants:• Campine NV and Campine Recycling NV (together Campine). Campine is a company established in Belgium, which is active

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 October 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Third party action before to the General Court seeking the annulment of the European Commission’s 2017 decision to unconditionally approve the acquisition of certain assets of Air Berlin by easyJet under the EU Merger Regulation (Case M.8672). Latest development On 20 October 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant:• Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (PLL)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Air Berlin’s insolvency Faced with a persistent deterioration of its financial situation, in 2016, Air Berlin plc (Air Berlin) implemented a restructuring plan. In that context, on 16 December 2016, it entered into an agreement with Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa), in order to sublet to it various aircraft along with their crew.However, the loss of the financial support (in the form of loans) granted to Air Berlin by

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 and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of (as amended) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €4.231m on Uralita (jointly and severally with Aragonesas) for its alleged participation in cartel for the supply of sodium chlorate ('Sodium chloride cartel'). On 6 October 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. This matter focuses, amongst other things, on the application of the limitation period for imposing fines for antitrust infringements (particularly in the context of a 'single and continuous infringement' and where an amended infringement decision is adopted). Parties Applicant: Uralita SA (Uralita and now Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción—hereafter CEMC)Defendant: European Commission CEMC (formerly Uralita) is a Spanish public limited company. In 1992 it created Aragonesas

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 May 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 5 February 2019 prohibiting the acquisition of Aurubis Rolled Products and Schwermetall by Wieland (Case M.8900) Latest development On 18 May 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicant: Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland): Wieland, a German-based company, is active in the manufacturing and supply of semi-finished products made of copper and copper alloys. Wieland covers the production chain for copper products from casting shapes to selling semi-finished products. It manufactures rolled copper and copper alloys products in Germany, the UK, the US and Singapore.Defendant: European Commission Background Transaction Under the proposed transaction, Wieland would have acquired sole control over Aurubis and of Aurubis’ shareholding in Schwermetall.Commission’s investigation On 13 June 2018, the transaction was notified to the Commission.On

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case T- 257/18 Iberpotash S.A. v Commission—an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision finding that aid awarded to Iberpotash was illegal and should be repaid (Case SA.35818). Latest developments On 19 December 2019, 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 did not make errors in its assessment that the aid had a potential effect on State resources, that it conferred a selective advantage and that it had correctly established the amount of the aid. Parties Applicant:• Iberpotash S.A. (renamed ICL Iberia Súria & Sallent in 2014) (both hereinafter referred to as Iberpotash): Iberpotash owns and operates several potash mines in the Catalonia region of Spain.Defendant:• European Commission Background Complaint On 30 November 2012, the Commission received a complaint alleging

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 31 March 2020 finding that a French scheme deferring the payment by airlines of certain aeronautical taxes was not unlawful State aid (SA.56765). Latest developments On 17 February 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The General Court held (amongst other things) that the limitation of the grant of aid only to airlines based in France was appropriate and proportionate. and that the conditions of the scheme did not go beyond what was necessary to achieve their objectives. The objectives of the scheme were in line with either Article 107(3)(b) or Article 107(2)(b). Parties Applicant:• Ryanair DAC (Ryanair)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 24 March 2020, France notified the Commission of its intention to