CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by Agria Polska at Court of Justice in Case C- 373/17 P) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 May 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 19 June 2015 rejecting a complaint brought by Agria Polska which alleged that a number of its rivals, large agrochemical companies (aided by industry bodies and a law firm), had infringed Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by waging a 'vexatious' administrative and criminal law campaign aimed at excluding Agria Polska and its subsidiaries from the 'plant protection products' market in a number of EU Member States (and, in particular, in Poland). The Commission decided not to open an in-depth investigation on the basis of enforcement priorities and, as part of this consideration, its determination that there was a limited likelihood of establishing the existence of an infringement. On 16 May 2017, the General Court dismissed the action

CASE HUB (appeal lodged by Orange Polska at Court of Justice in Case C- 123/16) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 December 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in fines regarding the Commission's decision of 22 June 2011 finding an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 102 TFEU and imposing a fine of €127.55m on Telekomunikacja Polska (now Orange Polska) for allegedly refusing to supply rival operators with wholesale broadband Internet access between August 2005 and October 2009. On 17 December 2016, the General Court dismissed Orange Polska's action in its entirety. This matter focuses (amongst other things) on issues regarding the calculation of fines, competency of the Commission to impose sanctions as well as procedural protections/requirements which have implications for the rights of defence. Parties Applicant: Telekomunikacja Polska SA (Telekomunikacja Polska, now Orange Polska) Defendant: European Commission Orange Polska (formerly

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 October 2007 January 2013 finding an infringement of Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) on the basis that a fee and tariff structure implemented by Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) restricted competition by hindering the issuance of payment cards in France by new entrants. On 30 June 2016, the General Court dismissed for the most part the action brought by CB concluding that the Commission was correct in finding that 'the measures in question had restrictive effects on competition'. This case is notable insofar as it reviews the ‘by object’/’by effect’ distinction under EU competition law—addressing, in particular, the liberal (and what was found to be inappropriate) application of the ‘by object’ label by the Commission in its assessment of potentially restrictive practices.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 149/21 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. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court regarding the European Commission’s decision of 14 June 2018 which rejected under Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004 a complaint brought by Fakro sp. z o.o. against VKR Holding A/S for an alleged abuse of a dominant position (Case AT.39451). Outcome On 16 December 2020, 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 not made a manifest error when rejecting Fakro sp. z.oo’s request. Parties Applicant:• Fakro sp. z.o.o. (Fakro): Fakro is a Polish manufacturer of roof window and accessories.Defendant: • European Commission Background Commission investigation On 11 July 2006, Fakro lodged an informal complaint with the Polish Competition Authority (PCA) that the conduct of a competitor, VKR Holding

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 21 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 7 February 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €13.2m on Toshiba for its alleged participation in a market sharing cartel regarding the supply of power transformers between 1999 and 2003 ('Power transformers cartel'). On 21 May 2014, the General Court dismissed Toshiba's appeal in its entirety. This matter focuses, amongst other things, on the probative value of corporate leniency statements and statements by employees Parties Applicant: Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba)Defendant: European Commission Toshiba is a Japanese company active in three main areas—digital products, electronic devices and components and infrastructure systems. As regards Toshiba’s activities in the sector at issue, there were two distinct phases the Commission took into account

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal of the Commission’s phase II decision of 17 September 2019 to conditionally clear acquisition by E.ON of RWE’s subsidiary Innogy (Case M.8870). Latest development On 20 December 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed all the actions. In particular, the General Court (amongst other things): (i) confirmed that an asset swap between independent undertakings does not constitute a ‘single concentration’; and (ii) the Commission make any manifest errors in its assessment of the compatibility

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 December 2018; 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, Coveris Rigid France (Coveris) for its participation in retail food packaging trays cartel in France. Outcome On 6 December 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, in which dismissed Coveris’ appeal that it should not be liable for a fine of €4.8m as its parent group sold off part of the business involved in the cartel and therefore the fine should become the responsibility of the company that purchased those assets. Parties Applicant: Coveris Rigid France Defendant: European Commission Coveris is a flexible packaging manufacturer. It provides a range of packaging solutions. Background The Commission’s investigation started in June 2008 when dawn raids were carried out. This followed an application for immunity by Linpac, who

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Case T- 531/18 LL-Carpenter v Commission—appeal to the General Court of the European Commission’s decision to reject a complaint relating to alleged anti-competitive behaviour by Subaru (AT.40037). Latest developments On 12 March 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action. Parties Applicant: LL-Carpenter s.r.o., a company established in the Czech Republic. LL-Carpenter is an independent intermediary for the purchase abroad of motor vehicles of the Subaru and Daihatsu brands, on behalf of end customers in the Czech Republic; it s also an independent repairer for vehicles of the same brands in the Czech Republic. Defendant: European Commission Background On 19 May 2010, LL-Carpenter lodged a formal complaint with the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (UOHS, the Czech Competition Authority), alleging three breaches of competition law by SUBARU ČR, sro (Subaru CZ). On 6 September

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 October 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission's decision of 3 August 2011 refusing Schenker AG access to certain documents in the Commission's administrative file in relation to the 'Airfreight cartel' investigation.  On 7 October 2014, the General Court partially annulled the contested decision for not providing access to a non-confidential version of the Airfreight infringement decision but dismissed the remainder of Schenker's action. Parties Applicant: Schenker AG (Schenker) Defendant: European Commission Other parties:• Air Canada• Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Cathay Pacific)• Lufthansa Cargo AG (Lufthansa)• Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)• Martinair Holland NV (Martinair)• Société Air France SA (Air France)• Swiss International Air Lines AG (Swiss)Schenker is a German logistics company and subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn, the German railway company. Schenker is responsible for land, sea, and air transport and contract logistics within the Deutsche Bahn group. Schenker considers

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 27 November 2013 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing a fine of €27.08m on Heiploeg for its alleged participation in a price fixing and market-sharing cartel in the North Sea shrimps sector ('North Sea Shrimps cartel'). On 8 September 2016, the General Court dismissed in its entirety the action.  This cartel matter raises, amongst other things, issues regarding addressees' 'inability to pay' and the admissibility during the administrative procedure of secretly (possibly illegally) recorded communications thereafter coming into the Commission's possession during the course of unannounced inspections. Parties Applicants:• Goldfish BV • Heiploeg BV• Heiploeg Beheer BV • Heiploeg Holding BV (collectively, Heiploeg) Defendant: European Commission Heiploeg trades North Sea shrimps and other seafood products throughout Europe.

CASE HUB (appeal lodged by Slovenská Pošta at Court of Justice in Case C- 293/15) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 March 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 7 October 2008 declaring amendments by Slovakia to its legislation on postal services (which extended the monopoly of the historical operator Slovenská Pošta in the provision of hybrid mail services) to be contrary to Article 86(1) EC (now Article 106(1) TFEU) read in conjunction with Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU). On 25 March 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. This case focuses on, amongst other things, the correct approach to the application of Article 106(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU. Parties Applicant: Slovenská Pošta a.s. (Slovenská Pošta) Defendant: European Commission Slovenská Pošta is the provider of the universal postal service in the Slovak Republic. In addition to postal services, it also provides

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 442/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 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 28 May 2018 finding that compensation granted by Denmark to Post Danmark to fulfil its public postal service duty during 2017–2019 was compatible with the State aid rules (SA.47707). Latest developments On 5 May 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it partially upheld the appeal finding that the VAT exemption and capital increase of 23 February 2017 did not constitute State aid. Parties Applicants:• ITD Danske Fragtmænd (ITD)• Danske Fragtmænd A/S (DF)Defendant:• European Commission (Commission)ITD is a trade association of companies incorporated under Danish law which are active on the national and international markets for road transport of foods and logistic services.DF is a company incorporated under Danish law and active on the