CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 January 2015; it is no longer maintained.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 3 May 2013 rejecting a complaint brought by easyJet (on 11 January 2011) alleging an infringement of Article 102 TFEU by NV Luchthaven Schiphol in relation to charges which easyJet claims are excessive and discriminatory and an abuse of NV Luchthaven Schiphol's dominant position as operator of Amsterdam-Schipol airport. The complaint was rejected by the Commission on the ground that the Dutch authority had already dealt with the matter and, as a result, that an infringement of competition law was unlikely to be established. On 21 January 2015, the General Court dismissed easyJet's action for annulment. 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 have already investigated the issues

CASE HUB (NOTE—on 3 August 2016, the Commission approved, with commitments, the joint venture between Vodafone Group and Liberty Global in the Netherlands (Case M.7978). KPN lodged an appeal against this decision before the General Court in Case T- 370/17). ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 May 2019; it is no longer maintained.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 Third party action before the General Court seeking the annulment of the European Commission decision to approve, with commitments, the joint venture between Vodafone Group and Liberty Global. Latest development On 23 May 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed in its entirety a third party action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2016 to approve, with commitments, a joint venture between Vodafone Group and Liberty Global in the Netherlands (Case M.7978). In particular, the General Court concluded that the Commission had not made manifest errors in its assessment of the Dutch market for

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 466/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 April 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking the annulment of a formal request for information (RFI) issued by the European Commission in the context of the Commission’s pending Article 102 TFEU investigation against Qualcomm into alleged predatory pricing practices (Case AT.39711) Outcome On 9 April 2019, the General Court issued its judgment, in which dismisses the appeal in its entirety, rejecting arguments that the RFI had been disproportionate and excessive and that the Commission had failed to state reasons for issuing this RFI. Instead, the General Court reiterates that the Commission has ‘broad powers of investigation and assessment’. Parties Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Europe, Inc. (together Qualcomm) Defendant: European Commission Qualcomm designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services. It is the world's largest supplier

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 October 2020; 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 2017 decision to prohibit the proposed joint acquisition of Cemex Croatia by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk under the EU Merger Regulation (Case M.7878). Latest development On 5 October 2020, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it dismissed the action, and upheld the Commission’s prohibition. Parties Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (HC) and Schwenk Zement KG (Schwenk)Defendant: European CommissionHC is a German-based construction material producer with operations in 60 countries throughout the world. Schwenk is a German-based construction material producer, with operations in a number of European countries. Duna Dráva Cement (DDC) is a joint subsidiary of HG and Schwenk, based in Hungary and operating throughout Eastern Europe. Among other activities, at the time of the Commission’s decision, DCC operated a grey cement plant in Kakanj in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Case T- 386/14 RENV FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission—an action for annulment of the European Commission’s decision to approve restructuring aid given by Denmark in 2012 to the FIH banking group, subject to a restructuring plan (Case SA.34445) that was remitted back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 579/16. Latest developments On 19 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the action and annulled the Commission’s decision. The General Court found that the Commission has made errors in the calculation of the aid granted to FIH by Denmark. Parties Applicants:• FIH Holding A/S is the ultimate parent of FIH Erhvervsbank A/S and its subsidiaries (together, FIH). FIH is a Danish financial services group, based in Copenhagen, active in banking, financial advisory services

CASE HUB (NOTE—on 30 May 2018, the Commission approved (for the second time) the proposed acquisition by Liberty Global of Ziggo (Case M.7000). KPN thus lodged a subsequent appeal against this decision before the General Court in Case T- 691/18 KPN v Commission) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Third party action before the General Court seeking the annulment of the European Commission decision to approve, with commitments, the acquisition by Liberty Global of Ziggo. Latest development On 26 October 2017, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld a third party action and annulled of the decision of the European Commission to approve, with commitments, the acquisition by Liberty Global of Ziggo (Case M.7000). The General Court concluded that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons in its decision by failing to give its reasons for not analysing possible vertical anti-competitive

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Holding Slovenske elektrarne (HSE) to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in fine regarding the Commission's decision of 22 July 2009 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing a fine of €9.1m on HSE (combined fines of €61.1m on HSE and eight other companies) for its alleged participation in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007. Parties Applicant: Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. (HSE) Defendant: European Commission Market(s) The EEA market for the supply of calcium carbide and magnesium to the steel and gas industries. Decision being appealed Commission

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 376/20 P and case referred back to General Court in Case T- 399/16 RENV ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 May 2020; 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 2016 decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Limited under the EU Merger Regulation (Case M.7612). Latest development On 28 May 2020, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it upheld the action and annulled the Commission’s prohibition decision. The General Court found that the (1) the Commission’s assessment of unilateral (non-coordinated) effects contained a number of errors of law and assessment and did not establish, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that prices would increase significantly, (2) the Commission failed to show that the effects of the transaction on the network-sharing agreements

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 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 of the Commission's decisions of 25 and 27 June 2013 ordering France Télécom, Orange and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by them to submit to an inspection (in accordance with Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003) in furtherance of a Commission investigation into a suspected abuse of dominance in the Internet connectivity services. Telecoms operators Deutsche Telekom and Telefónica were also subjected to unannounced inspections as part of the investigation. The General Court issued its judgment on 25 November 2014. On 3 October 2014, the Commission announced that it had closed the investigation without taking any action. It reached a provisional decision that Article 102 TFEU had not been breached—there was no evidence of behaviour aimed at foreclosing transit services from the market or of providing an unfair advantage to the operators'

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 or reduction in fines regarding the Commission's decision of 22 July 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a fine of €5m in relation to Donau Chemie AG's alleged participation in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007 ('Calcium carbide cartel'). This matter focuses primarily on the methodology for (and mechanics of) calculating a fine for infringement of the competition rules. Parties Applicant: Donau Chemie AG (Donau Chemie)Defendant: European Commission Donau Chemie is an Austrian chemical company which produces calcium carbide and which, thereafter supplies calcium carbide granulates and calcium carbide powder to the gas and steel industries respectively. Background Following an application for immunity lodged by Akzo Nobel under the 2002 Leniency Notice, unannounced inspections were carried out by the Commission in January 2007 at

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice C- 846/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court against the Commission's decision of 20 November 2013 finding that aid granted for the construction of the Lithuanian liquefied natural gas terminal in the Klaipéda Seaport was compatible with the State aid rules (Case SA.36740). Latest developments On 12 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the General Court concluded that the Commission had considered all information available and could not take into account information that had not been provided in complaints. The Court also held the Commission had not incorrectly assessed the future demand for Lithuanian gas, rival private projects were not designed for national security capacity, the aid terms were proportionate, and a legal commence construction did not indicate

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 595/18) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 July 2018; 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 2 April 2014 in which the Commission imposed fines totalling €301.6m on producers of high-voltage power cables for their participation in a worldwide market-sharing and customer-allocating cartel (the power cables cartel) including a fine of €37.3m against The Goldman Sachs Group.Also see case hub on other judgments in relation to power cables cartel issued by General Court on 12 July 2018 at Cases T- 422/14, T- 438/14, T- 439/14, T- 441/14, T- 444/14, T- 445/14, T- 446/14, T- 447/14, T- 448/14, T- 449/14, T- 450/14, T- 451/14, T- 455/14, T- 475/14 Viscas and others v Commission (power cables cartel). Outcome On