ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C - 746/21 P See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision fining Altice Europe for implementing its acquisition of PT Portugal prior to notifying the transaction and receiving clearance by the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation. Latest development On 22 September 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it partially dismissed the action. The General Court held (amongst other things) that the Commission did not err in finding that there had been breach of both the notification and standstill obligations under the EU Merger Regulation. However, the General Court decided that it was appropriate to reduce the fine imposed for implementation prior to notification by 10%. Parties Applicant:• Altice Europe (Altice)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission)Altice is a Dutch based multi-national telecommunications.

CASE HUB NOTE—an appeal has been lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 127/21 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 December 2020; it is no longer maintained.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 decision to grant grandfathering rights over slots made available as part of the commitments under the EU Merger Regulation accepted in Case M.6607 US Airways/American Airlines. Latest development On 16 December 2020, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it rejected the appeal. Parties Applicant: American Airlines (AA). Defendant: European Commission Background The 2013 decision in US Airways/American Airlines On 5 August 2013, the Commission, after a phase I investigation, cleared the merger between AA and US Airways subject to commitments. The Commission concluded that the transaction would lead to a monopoly on the London to Philadelphia route (due to AA’s joint venture with British Airways). To remedy the competition concerns,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 26/10/2017 Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision rejecting a complaint brought by VIMC on the basis of Article 13(1) of Regulation 1/2003. Latest developments On 23 October 2017, the General Court issued its judgment, dismissing in its entirety an action for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to reject a complaint by VIMC on the grounds that the issues in question were already being investigated by a national competition authority (Case AT.40231). The General Court concluded that the Commission correctly applied the principles set out Article 13(1) of Regulation 1/2003, in exercising its discretion not to open an investigation on the basis that the Austrian national competition authority was already investigating. Parties Applicant: Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (VIMC) is a German company operating in the private care sector

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 October 2013; 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 2 July 2010 rejecting a complaint brought by Vivendi alleging an infringement of Article 102 TFEU by France Télécom on the French broadband and telephone subscription market(s) in relation to an alleged practise of structural discrimination in the tariffs for its wholesale supplies (which favours France Télécom's retail division) and the maintenance of too high a tariff for recurrent access to the local loop. The complaint was rejected by the Commission on the grounds that there was insufficient EU interest in pursuing an investigation of the alleged infringements. On 16 October 2013, the General Court dismissed in its entirety Vivendi's action for annulment. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints—in particular, in circumstances where national authorities/sector regulators

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 440/19 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 March 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing fines on, amongst others, Pometon for its participation in the steel abrasives cartel throughout the EEA. Outcome On 28 March 2019, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it dismissed Pometon’s wider appeal where it found that the Commission had not breached Pometon’s rights of defence and the presumption of innocence. However, the General Court upheld Pometon’s appeal by reducing the level of fine from €6.2m to €3.9m. Parties Applicant: Pometon SpA (Pometon) Defendant: European Commission Pometon is an Italian company that specialises in the treatment of metals. Background The Commission’s investigation started in June 2010 when dawn raids were carried out. This was prompted by a leniency application

CASE HUB (Appeal lodged by Timab before the Court of Justice in Case C- 411/15 P) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment or a substantial reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 20 July 2010 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €59.85m jointly and severally on CFPR and its subsidiary Timab for the latter's alleged participation in a cartel in the European animal feed phosphates market ('Animal feed phosphates cartel'). On 20 May 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and confirmed the fine imposed. This matter focuses primarily on the relationship between the standard administrative procedure and the settlement procedure in cartel proceedings—in particular, in circumstances where a 'hybrid' settlement procedure has been pursued by the Commission

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. Case facts ARCHIVE—20/03/2014 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 in relation to Faci's participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers. 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: Faci SpA (Faci) Defendant: European Commission Faci is an Italian company (with a presence in the UK and Spain) which manufactures and sells, amongst other things, epoxidised soybean oil and esters. Background On 11 November 2009, the Commission imposed total fines of €173.86m on 24 companies (from ten different corporate groups) for their alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat

CASE HUB 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 of the European Commission’s re-adopted decision against Printeos and Tompla (following the annulment of its original decision by the General Court) finding infringements and imposing fines in relation to their participation in a cartel in the market for paper envelopes (AT.39780). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal to annul the re-imposed fine. However, the General Court ordered the Commission to pay the costs of the litigation due to the careless way in which it had composed its decision. Parties Applicants:• Printeos, SA and Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (together, Printeos)• Tompla Scandinavia AB, Tompla France and Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (together, Tompla)Defendant:• European Commission Background Background The Commission carried out dawn raids in September 2010. Following this, three of the undertakings

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 509/21 and C- 508/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 June 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2018 finding that the non-charging of a deposit on certain drinks packaging sold by German border shops to customers resident in Denmark does not constitute State aid (Case SA.44865). Latest developments On 9 June 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which upheld the appeal. As a result, the General Court annulled the Commission’s 2018 decision. Parties Applicants:• Dansk ErhvervDefendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background German Federal legislation ‘VerpackV’ transposes Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste. In respect of certain non-reusable drinks packaging, the above legislation establishes a deposit scheme, including (VAT which must be charged at each distribution level until transfer to the end-consumer and refunded

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 April 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of Commission letters claiming from the applicants certain amounts corresponding to fines imposed by the Commission in its decision of 31 May 2006 (in relation to Total and Elf's alleged participation in the 'Acrylic glass' cartel) and in the context of measures adopted subsequently by the Commission to execute General Court judgments which reduced the fine imposed on the applicants’ subsidiaries but dismissed the action brought by the applicants. On 29 April 2015, the General Court annulled the letters in dispute but only insofar as the Commission demands Elf pay default interest in the amount of €31.31m (and which Total is jointly and severally liable for the amount of €19.19m). This case focuses on the payment of fines in cartel matters (and the implications for any such payments required

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the Commission decision of 13 May 2011 approving Wendel Investissement as the purchaser of divested assets in accordance with commitments provided under the conditional clearance decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the merger whereby Lagardère acquired sole control of the assets of Vivendi Universal Publishing (Case COMP/M.2978—Lagardère/Natexis/VUP). The contested decision was adopted following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision granting approval of Wendel as the purchaser (due to procedural irregularities). On 5 September 2014, the General Court dismissed the action. This matter focuses primarily on procedural issues in relation to the divestiture process—ie suitability of purchaser and, more specifically, assuring and assessing the independence of the identified trustee assigned to monitor the process. Parties Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Odile Jacob)Defendant: European Commission Odile Jacob is a

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 January 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 10 April 2018 finding that French aid, granted in the form of financing for training courses in the use of construction machinery, was not unlawful State aid.(SA.46897). Latest developments On 15 October 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 Commission made no error in finding that the aid financing training courses in the use of construction machinery did not constitute State aid under Article 107 TFEU. Parties Applicants:• Mr Bezouaoui• HB ConsultantDefendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background In France, the Labour Code provides for the right to professional training for employees, self-employed workers, liberal professions and private workers. Employers, apart from the State, are also required to contribute to