CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 November 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment or a reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 28 March 2012 finding an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 and imposing a fine of €2.5m on Czech energy company Energetický and its business advisory unit EP Advisors for their alleged obstruction during an unannounced Commission inspection. The applicants claim that there were irregularities in the conduct of the inspection insofar as the Commission did not ensure that the relevant individuals had been properly informed of their duties (or of the consequences of non-compliance) and, furthermore, breached the 'presumption of innocence' principle as it allegedly approached the case with insufficient care and transparency. On 26 November 2014, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. This case focuses

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 403/18 P (in relation to main appeal); appeal also lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 386/15 (in relation to the General Court’s order made on 16/06/2015)) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 April 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court brought by Alcogroup and Alcodis of two Commission decisions dated 12 March 2015 and 8 May 2015. The former concerned the manner in which Commission inspectors had carried out dawn raids out on 24 March 2015 in relation to AT.40244, namely that legally privileged correspondence had been unlawfully analysed and seized. The latter concerned the Commission’s letter rejecting the applicants’ request to suspend any investigative act concerning them in AT.40054 and AT.40244. Outcome On 10 April 2018, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action in its entirety.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 70/23. ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the calculation of fine regarding the fine imposed by the Commission’s decision in the pre-stressing steel cartel (COMP/38.344) (as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011). Latest development On 23 November 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal. It held (amongst other things) that the Commission was justified in considering that, since the fine set by the General Court was not a new fine, it had been payable since 4 January 2011. The suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee did not imply the suspension of the enforceability of the debt, which continued to produce default interest during the court

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 June 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases NOTE—appeal lodged by Intel at Court of Justice in Case C- 413/14 P Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in fines regarding the Commission's decision of 13 May 2009 finding an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU) and Article 54 EEA Agreement and imposing a record individual fine on Intel of €1.06bn for the alleged infringement committed between October 2002 and December 2007. On 12 June 2014, the General Court dismissed Intel's action in its entirety. This matter is notable, not only because of the record level of fine imposed, but also in terms of indicating where things stand (and how matters might develop going forward) regarding a forms-based vs effects-based approach to assessing (under Article 102 TFEU) rebates specifically and exclusionary abuses more generally.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 240/222 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 January 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts col style="width: 16%;"> Outline Referral back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 413/14 Intel v Commission, which was an appeal against the General Court’s judgment upholding the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 (Case AT.37990) finding an infringement and imposing a fine on Intel Corporation for its alleged abuse of a dominant position in relation to conditional rebates and loyalty payments. Outcome On 26 January 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it partially annulled the Commission’s decision. In particular, the General Court held (amongst other things) that the Commission’s analysis was incomplete and does not make it possible to establish to the requisite legal standard that the rebates at issue were capable of having, or likely to

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 and related cases. Case facts Outline Third party action before to the General Court seeking the annulment of the European Commission’s 2017 decision to conditionally approved the proposed acquisition of certain assets of Air Berlin by Lufthansa under the EU Merger Regulation (Case M.8633). Latest development On 20 October 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal. In particular, the General Court held (amongst other things) that the Commission had not made any manifest errors of assessment in its analysis of the effects of the merger in question on the markets of air passenger transport services to and from the airports concerned, taking into account the low rate of congestion at those airports and the limited effect of the merger on the increase in the slot shares held by Lufthansa. Parties Applicant:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment and/or a reduction in fine regarding the Commission's decision of 11 November 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a fine of €10.8m in relation to Reagens SpA's alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers ('Heat stabilisers cartel'). This matter raises (amongst other things) issues regarding the Commission adducing evidence capable of demonstrating, to the requisite legal standard, the existence of circumstances constituting an infringement. Parties Applicants: Reagens SpA (Reagens)Defendant: European Commission Reagens is an Italian company and the ultimate parent company of an international group engaged in the production and sales of tin stabilisers for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and which purchases epoxidised soybean oil and esters for resale. Background Following an application for immunity lodged by Chemtura in November 2002 under the 2002

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 April 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 8 January 2019 finding that Lithuanian aid granted to support (i) the production of electricity from renewable energy sources and (ii) electro-intensive users was compatible with the State aid rules (Case SA.45765) Latest developments On 14 April 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal. Parties Applicants:• Achema AB (hereafter, Achema) and Lifosa AB (hereafter, Lifosa) (together, the Applicants)Defendant:• European Commission Background Background On 27 January 2016, the Applicants (amongst others) lodged a formal complaint before the Commission (the 2016 complaint) concerning alleged unlawful aid granted by Lithuania to producers of electricity produced from renewable energy sources (hereafter, RES).On 27 June 2016, Lithuania pre-notified to the Commission a support measure for power plants generating electricity from RES in Lithuania.On 3 March

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 538/18) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 June 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission’s decision ordering inspections under Article 20 of Regulation 1/2003 in relation to the so-called Falcon investigation (AT.40156). Latest development On 20 June 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it partially annulled the Commission’s investigation as far as it related to routes other than between Prague and Ostrava and alleged breaches of Article 102 TFEU other than predatory pricing; the remainder of the decision (in relation to alleged predatory pricing on the route between Prague and Ostrava) was upheld.  In particular, the General Court repeated the principle that a decision ordering an inspection must contain sufficiently serious indications of an alleged breach of EU competition law; the Falcon decision did not contain such indications,

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 536/19 P(I), C- 698/21 and C- 693/21 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 27 November 2017 regarding its decision to open an in–depth investigation to examine the environmental investment incentive granted by Spain to coal–fired power stations (SA.47912). Latest developments On 8 September 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal. In particular, the General Court held that the Commission was correct to conclude that since the scheme was exclusively open to power plants using coal as their main fuel and included in the PNRE-GIC, the measure appeared to be selective. Parties Applicant:• Naturgy Energy Group SA (NEG)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Naturgy Energy Group (formerly Gas Natural SDG SA) is a Spanish energy company.In

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 757/21, C- 759/21 and C- 786/21 See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 March 2018 finding the operation of a cartel to exchange sensitive information with the aim to coordinate future behaviour and avoid price competition in the market for electrolytic capacitors (used to store electrical energy) and imposing fines totalling €253.935m (AT.40136). Latest development On 29 September 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the actions and upheld the fines imposed by the Commission. Parties • Applicants: Nec Corporation (Nec)Nichicon Corporation (Nichicon)Tokin Corp (Tokin)Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings (Rubycon)Nippon

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 February 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 28 April 2011 rejecting a complaint brought by Confederación Española de Estaciones de Servicio (CEES) and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio (AGES) regarding Repsol CPP's alleged non-compliance with binding commitments previously accepted under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 in relation to Repsol CPP's long-term supply and exclusivity arrangement with service stations in Spain. CEES and AGES are two associations representing 45% of Spanish service stations. In the contested decision, the Commission rejected their complaint against Repsol, Cepsa and AOP (an oil industry trade association) having determined, in particular, that there were not sufficient grounds for finding that Repsol had failed to comply with the agreed commitments.. Parties Applicants:• Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES)