CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 June 2014 it is no longer maintained. Case facts ARCHIVE—26/06/2014 Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment regarding the decision of the Commission’s accounting officer of 8 October 2010 concerning payment by instalment of the fine imposed on the applicants by the Commission decision of 20 July 2010 (and taken in the framework of a 'hybrid' settlement procedure) relating to a three-decade long cartel in the European animal feed phosphates market ('Animal feed phosphates cartel'). In particular, the challenge relates to the requirement that Quimitécnica provide a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term 'AA' credit rating from one of three specified credit rating agencies. This matter focuses primarily on issues regarding the inability to pay and the process of payment. Parties Applicants: • Quimitécnica.com—Comércio e Indústria Química SA (Quimitécnica)• José de Mello—Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA (JMS)Defendant: European Commission The applicants are Portuguese companies engaged in the production and supply of

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline On 26 September 2018, the General Court issued its judgment in Case T- 574/14 – EAEPC v Commission, an action for the annulment of a Commission decision in Case COMP/AT.36957 (Glaxo Wellcome), whereby the Commission rejected a complaint by EAEPC, thereby refusing a further investigation into the alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU by Glaxo Wellcome SA (now GlaxoSmithKline SA). The General Court dismissed the action. Outcome On 26 September 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, dismissing the action for annulment. Parties Applicant: the European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC). EAEPC is a European association representing the interests of independent companies operating in the export or import and re-packaging of finished pharmaceutical products within the EEA. Defendant: European Commission Intervener (in support of Commission): GlaxoSmithKline SA (formerly Glaxo Wellcome SA), a company regulated by Spanish law established

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing fines on Stührk Delikatessen Import for its alleged participation in a price-fixing cartel concerning the supply of North Sea shrimps (AT.39633). Outcome On 13 July 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it partially annulled the Commission’s decision as far as it imposed a fine on Stührk Delikatessen Import; the remainder of the action was dismissed, with the General Court upholding the rest of the decision. In particular, the General Court held that the Commission failed to state adequate reasons for its decision to depart from the general methodology set out in the Fining Guidelines and award different reductions to the four parties. Parties Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import (Stührk), a German seafood importer (including North Sea shrimps).

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 January 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal of the Commission’s phase II decision of 15 May 2020 that partially waived commitments given as a condition of approving the acquisition of Embraco, the compressor business of Whirlpool, by Nidec (Case M.8947). Latest development On 25 January 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal and annulled the Commission’s decision. In particular, the General Court, held that by omitting, in the Commission’s decision, to verify whether the structure of the market in question had undergone a lasting change in the period of ten months which elapsed between the decision authorising the concentration and the request to partially lift the ban on the repurchase of Nidec, the Commission committed an error of law. Parties Applicant:• Italia Wanbao Srl (Italia Wanbao) Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission). Background Background Under the proposed transaction, which was agreed and announced on 24 April 2018, Nidec is to acquire Embraco from

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 581/22 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 June 2019 in which it prohibited the proposed joint venture between Tata Steel and ThyssenKrupp AG (Case M.8713). Latest development On 22 June 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In particular, the General Court found the that: (i) the Commission had a margin of discretion in its economic assessments, but in any event it had clearly set out its reasons and it is not required to implement every type of econometric test; (ii) technical feasibility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for supply side substitutability, and rejected pleas in relation to the assessment of geographic markets, consideration of imports, and analysis of barriers to entry and expansion

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 541/23 P Polwax v Commission ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 June 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal of the Commission’s phase II decision of 14 July 2020 to conditionally clear PKN Orlen’s acquisition of /Grupa Lotos (M.9014). Latest development On 25 January 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety as unfounded. In particular, the General Court held (amongst other things) that: the Commission had not made an error in defining the market, that the merger could not have resulted in a reduction in supply on the slack wax market and therefore, there could be no removal of a significant competitive pressure on this market or increased market power (in reference to Polwax's claim that Orlen was itself a slack wax producer, so that its takeover of Lotos also had a horizontal dimension) and that the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 October 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision in Case AT.40410 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines on, amongst others, Clariant for its participation in a cartel concerning purchases on the ethylene merchant market (AT.40410). Outcome On 18 October 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The General Court also dismissed the Commission’s counterclaim. Parties • Applicant: Clariant AG and its subsidiary, Clariant International AG (together, Clariant). Clariant, a Swiss-based company, is one of the world’s leading specialty chemical companies.• Defendant: European Commission (Commission) Background Commission’s investigation On 16 May 2016, the Commission carried out dawn raids.On 29 June 2016, an undertaking made an application under the Leniency Notice.Between 23 May and 3 July 2017, three other undertakings also made applications under the Leniency

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 738/22 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 September 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline An appeal to the General Court against the European Commission’s decision of 18 July 2018 finding that Google had abused its dominant position by imposing anti-competitive restrictions on manufacturers of devices and on mobile operators in order to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine and imposed a fine of €4.34bn. Latest developments On 13 July 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it largely dismissed the appeal. However, the General Court annulled one aspect of the Commission’s decision. It found that Google’s revenue sharing schemes with manufacturers did not constitute an abuse because the Commission made various errors in its application of the as-efficient competitor test. Furthermore, the General Court found that the Commission had made a procedural error because it failed

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’s decision of 27 June 2019 in which it fined Cannon Inc. €28m for the pre-clearance implementation of its acquisition of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Toshiba Corporation, through the use of a two-step ‘warehousing’ deal structure. Latest development On 18 May 2022, 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: (i) did not err in classifying the interim transaction as a partial implementation of the concentration, in breach of both Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the EUMR; (ii) had not erred in imposing fines or calculating the level of those fines; and (iii) had not committed procedural errors affecting Canon’s rights of defence. Parties Applicant:

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 February 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision refusing Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring's request for a non-confidential version of the Commission’s decision and access to documents in relation to the ERID cartel investigation Outcome On 5 February 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, dismissing the action in its entirety. The General Court concluded that Edeka failed to show that the table of contents of the Commission’s file was not covered by a general presumption of confidentiality and that there should be an overriding public interest in disclosure. Parties Applicant: Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring (Edeka), part of the Edeka Cooperative, a German retailer and wholesaler.Defendant: European Commission Background On 4 December 2013, the Commission, following a settlement, issued an infringement decision against four banks (Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale and RBS) for participating in a

NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 48/22 See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision fining Google for breaching Article 102 TFEU by positioning and displaying its own comparison shopping service, Google Shopping, more favourable in its search result pages compared to rival comparison shopping services (AT.39740). Latest development On 10 November 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it largely upheld the Commission’s decision finding that the Commission correctly found that Google’s practices harmed competition and dismissed Google’s arguments that the presence of merchant platforms showed there was strong competition. However, the General Court considered that the Commission did not establish Google’s conduct had (even potential) anti-competitive effects on the market for general search services and therefore annulled the Commission’s finding of an infringement in respect of that market alone.The General Court upheld the fine of €2.42m imposed on Google citing the serious nature of the infringement and that the conduct in question was adopted

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 24 May 2018 to accept commitments from Gazprom in order to address competition concerns in relation to the national markets for the upstream wholesale supply of gas in the countries of eastern and central Europe (AT.39816). Latest developments On 2 February 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicants:• Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A (the ‘Applicant’)Defendant:• European Commission (the ‘Commission’) Background Commission’s investigation Between 2011 and 2015, the Commission took several measures in order to investigate the functioning of the gas markets in central and eastern Europe.On 4 September 2012, the Commission launched an investigation into Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC (together, ‘Gazprom’) in relation to the supply of gas in