CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 539/18) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2018; it is no longer maintained.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, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Case T- 621/16 České dráhy v Commission (Twins)—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 Twins investigation (AT.40401). Latest development On 20 June 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it dismissed an action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision ordering dawn raids..   Parties Applicant:České dráhy (CD), the main railway operator in the Czech Republic. Defendant: European Commission Background The Commission’s ongoing investigation in Twins (AT.40401) is in relation to alleged breaches of Article 101 TFEU in relation to agreements or concerted practices aimed at excluding competing rail passenger transport providers from the market, in particular in relation to the sale of used rolling stock

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 May 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the Commission's decision of 18 September 2013 refusing to grant full access to certain documents concerning two Spanish national competition proceedings, exchanged between the Commission and the national competition authority in the context of the cooperation provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. On 12 May 2015, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. Any EU citizen or natural/legal person residing (or having its registered office) in a Member State has the right of access to documents of the EU’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies—whatever their medium. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (otherwise known as the 'Transparency Regulation') defines the principles and conditions in which this right may be exercised but also provides a number of important qualifications to this right, including an exception regarding

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 823/18 Commission v GEA Group See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the amended European Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing fines on GEA for its participation in the heat stabilisers cartel (AT.38589). Outcome On 18 October 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it annulled the amended Commission decision in its entirety. Parties Applicant: GEA Group AG (GEA), a German supplier of process technology for the food industry and a wide range of other industries. Defendant: European Commission Background By decision of 11 November 2009 (the 2009 Commission Decision), the Commission imposed fines on, amongst others, Aachener Chemische Werke Gesellschaft für glastechnische Produkte und Verfahren mbH (ACW), Chemson Polymer Additive AG (Chemson) and GEA for their participation in prohibited agreements and/or concerted practices

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 January 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Referral back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 823/18, which was an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 640/16 which annulled the Commission’s amending decision of 11 September 2009 (readopted on 29 June 2016) in the heat stabilisers cartel (AT.38589). Latest development On 25 January 2023, 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: (i) treated GEA unequally in comparison with either ACW or CPA; (ii) acted ultra vires in setting a date for the payment of the fine, which before the date of the Commission’s readopted decision: and (iii) erred in its application of the 10% cap and in not extending its application to reduce GEA’s fine. Parties Applicant:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 January 2019 regarding its decision to open an in-depth investigation to examine tax rulings granted by the Netherlands tax administration to Nike and Converse in order to determine whether there might be any unlawful State aid (SA.51284). Latest developments On 14 July 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action in its entirety. The General Court held (amongst other things) that the Commission complied with the procedural rules and had neither failed to fulfil its obligations to state reasons nor made a manifest error of assessment. Parties Applicants:• Nike European Operations Netherlands• Converse Netherlands BV(together, the Applicants)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background The Commission's formal investigation concerns the tax treatment in the Netherlands of two Nike group companies based in the Netherlands,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking annulment and a reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 12 October 2011 finding infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing a fine of €8.92m on FSL (jointly and severally with two subsidiaries) for its subsidiary's alleged participation in a price fixing cartel in southern Europe for the supply of bananas ('Exotic fruits—bananas cartel'). On 16 June 2015, the General Court partially annulled the Commission decision and reduced the fine imposed to €6.69m. This case focuses on principles governing the burden of proof regarding the duration of an undertaking's participation in an cartel and, in turn, the Commission's fining calculations under the 2006 Fining Guidelines (in particular, application of the multiplier for duration). In addition, the matter is interesting insofar as the Commission used documents obtained

CASE HUB 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, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 26 April 2020 approving a German State-guaranteed loan in favour of German charter airline Condor for damage caused by the Covid-19 outbreak (SA.56867). Latest developments On 9 June 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal and annulled the Commission’s decision on the grounds that it contained an inadequate statement of reasons. However, because of the economic and social context marked by the Covid-19 pandemic, the General Court suspended the annulment pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission. Parties Applicant:• Ryanair DAC (Ryanair)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Germany notified an aid measure to partly compensate Condor for damage suffered due to the cancellation or re-scheduling of its flights as a result of the imposition of travel

CASE HUB (appeal lodged by Trioplast at the Court of Justice in Case C- 364/16) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 May 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 letter claiming from Trioplast Industrier late payment interest corresponding to a fine imposed by the Commission in its decision of 30 November 2005 (in relation to a subsidiary of Trioplast Industrier's participation in the 'Industrial bag' cartel) and in the context of measures adopted subsequently by the Commission in light of the General Court judgment reducing the fine for which Trioplast Industrier was held jointly and severally liable. On 12 May 2016, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. This case focuses on the payment of fines in cartel matters (and the implications for any such payments required by parent companies where appeals brought before the courts result in reductions of

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of the Commission's decision of 29 October 2013 refusing to grant AXA Versicherung AG access to certain documents in the Commission's administrative file in relation to the 'Car glass cartel' investigation. These documents are being sought in support of an action for damages AXA is pursuing before a national (German) court. On 7 July 2015, the General Court partially annulled the Commission decision but only insofar as it related to access to a small portion of the documentation requested. Any EU citizen or natural/legal person residing (or having its registered office) in a Member State has the right of access to documents of the EU’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies—whatever their medium. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (otherwise known as the 'Transparency Regulation') defines the principles and conditions in which this right may be exercised but

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 591/21 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline An action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2020 approving a €150m subordinated loan to compensate Austrian Airlines for damages suffered as a result of the cancellation or rescheduling of its flights due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak (SA.57539). Latest developments On 14 July 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicants:• Ryanair DAC (Ryanair)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Market Aviation. Decisions being appealed C(2020) 4684 final of 6 July 2020 relating to SA.57539 Background Measure at issue In June 2020, Austria notified to the Commission an individual aid measure in favour of Austrian Airlines AG (AUA). The aid notified, in the form of a subordinated loan convertible

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 October 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 12 November 2008 (as amended by the decision of 11 February 2009) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €4.396m on Soliver for its alleged participation in an EEA-wide car glass cartel between 19 November 2001 to 11 March 2003. The case focuses primarily on the issue of a 'single and continuous infringement' and, in particular, the evidential requirements that need to be met by the Commission in order for one to be established. Soliver (a much smaller player on the car-glass market than its alleged co-conspirators—Saint-Gobain, Pilkington and Asahi/AGC Automotive France) contests, primarily, the Commission's finding that it participated in a 'single and continuous infringement' insofar as it

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 578/21 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2019 regarding alleged illegal State aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced property tax (SA.44671). Latest developments On 7 July 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action. The General Court held that the applicants had not demonstrated the existence of doubts such as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure. Parties Applicants:• Irish Wind Farmers’ Association (IWFA)• Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Carrons Windfarm)• Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Foyle Windfarm)• Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Greenoge Windfarm)(together, the Applicants)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background In 2001, the Valuation Act was adopted in Ireland. It repealed all the previous Valuation Acts and provided for the revaluation of all Irish companies by the