CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 April 2021; it is no longer maintained.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 23 November 2017 approving two German State aid schemes in favour of charities for social assistance missions (SA.42268 and SA.42877). Latest developments On 14 April 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicants:• Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen / Bremen und Hamburg / Schleswig-Holstein eV (VDAB), an association which operates in the Länder Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony, Germany), Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Bremen, Germany), Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany) and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany) and represents the interests of 160 companies which themselves manage or operate residential establishments providing ambulatory and inpatient assistance and care for dependent persons and assistance for disabled people, children and children. youth.• CarePool Hannover GmbH (CarePool), a company

ARCHIVED—this achieved case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 144/19 P, C- 151/19 P, C- 164/19 P, C- 166/19 P, C- 176/19 P, C- 197/19 P, C- 198/19 P, C- 201/19 P and C- 207/19 P See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court in seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission’s decision of 9 June 2014 finding infringements of Article 101 and Article 102 insofar as they relate to Servier and imposing fines totalling €427.7m on Servier and five producers of generic drugs to delay the entry of perindopril. Outcome On 12 December 2018, the General Court issued its judgments in Cases T- 691/14 Servier v Commission, T- 677/14 Biogaran v Commission, T- 679/14 Teva UK and Others v Commission, T- 680/14 Lupin v Commission, T- 682/14 Mylan Laboratories and Mylan v Commission, T- 684/14 Krka

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 January 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Third party action before the General Court seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision to conditionally approve (for the second time) the acquisition by Liberty Global of Ziggo. Latest development On 27 January 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties • Applicant: KPN, a Dutch company offering landline and mobile telecommunications and TV services • Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Transaction On 27 January 2014, Liberty Global agreed to acquire the remaining shares and control of Ziggo. The agreed purchase price is €10bn.Liberty Global already owns 28.5% of the shares in Ziggo. Commission’s 2014 investigation The Commission was notified of the merger on 14 March 2014. The case was referred for a phase II investigation on 8 May 2014. During the phase I investigation, the Dutch competition authority had requested, under Article

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 January 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 15 July 2014 rejecting a complaint brought by Topps Europe (a producer of football collectibles) which alleged that FIFA, UEFA and four national football federations license their rights for the World Cup and Euro football tournaments to Panini SpA (a competitor of Topps) in an anti-competitive way (in breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU). 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. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints. Latest development On 11 January 2017, the General Court dismissed Topps' action for annulment, thus upholding the Commission's rejection of the complaint. The General Court’s

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 September 2016; 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 28 November 2014 rejecting a complaint brought by Trajektna (the private operator of the passenger ferry terminal at the Port of Split) which alleged an infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the Split Port Authority in relation to limits on fees charged which Trajektna claims are unfair and discriminatory and amount to an abuse of the Split Port Authority's dominant position as operator of Port of Split. The complaint was rejected by the Commission primarily on the grounds that the likelihood of establishing an infringement was limited and that the Croatian national courts and authorities appeared, in any event, best placed to deal with the issues raised. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints—in particular,

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by Marine Harvest before the Court of Justice in Case C- 10/08 Marine Harvest v Commission (failure to notify)) 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 Appeal to the General Court of the European Commission decision fining Marine Harvest for the failure to notify its acquisition of control over Morpol and failure to comply with the standstill obligation. Latest development On 7 March 2017, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to impose fines for the failure to notify a merger and a failure to comply with the standstill obligation. Parties Applicant: Marine Harvest. Defendant: European Commission Marine Harvest, a Norwegian seafood company which produces farmed salmon, white halibut and various other seafood products. It has salmon farming and primary processing activities in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Canada, Ireland and

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by CEAHR before the Court of Justice in Case C- 3/18 P) 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, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision rejecting a complaint brought by CEAHR alleging a breach of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU by a number of watch manufacturers in relation to a refusal to continue to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers. Outcome 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 CEAHR alleging a breach of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU by a number of watch manufacturers in relation to a refusal to continue to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers. The General Court concluded that the action brought failed to demonstrate that the Commission

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 May 2018; 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 reject a request for the partial waiver of commitments accepted in Case M.3770 Lufthansa/Swiss. Latest development On 16 May 2018, the General Court issued its judgment, in which it partially annulled the decision of the European Commission to reject a request for the partial waiver of commitments accepted in Case M.3770 Lufthansa/Swiss. The General Court concluded that the Commission failed to examine all relevant information, including the termination of a joint venture agreement, and failed to take account of a change in policy by the Commission in relation to the assessment of codeshare agreements. Therefore it annulled the decision in relation to the rejection of a waiver request in relation to the Zurich-Stockholm route where there had been a change in contractual relationships

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 December 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 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €370m on Pilkington for its alleged participation in an EEA-wide car glass cartel between 10 March 1998 to 3 September 2002 ('Car glass cartel'). This case focuses primarily on the issue of a 'single and continuous infringement'. Parties Applicants: • Pilkington Group Ltd • Pilkington Automotive Ltd • Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH • Pilkington Holding GmbH• Pilkington Italia SpA (collectively, Pilkington)Defendant: European Commission Pilkington is one of the largest manufacturers of glass and glazing products for building, automotive and related technical markets world-wide. Background Following a tip-off from an anonymous source, the Commission on its own initiative started an investigation

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 May 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 1 December 2010 rejecting a complaint brought by Omnis Group alleging infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp on the market for Enterprise Application Software (referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems). 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 30 May 2013, the General Court dismissed Omnis' action for annulment in its entirety. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with competition law complaints. Parties Applicant: Omnis Group Srl (Omnis) Defendant: European Commission Intervener in support of the defendant: Microsoft Corp (Microsoft)Omnis is a Romanian software development company active in the supply of operating systems for personal computers.  Background On

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 against the Commission’s decision against Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited and Cephalon Inc., imposing a total fine of €60.5m, for breach of Article 101 TFEU in relation to a ‘pay delay’ agreement, under which Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited committed not to market a cheaper generic version of Cephalon Inc’s drug for sleep disorders, Modafinil, following expiration of patents in exchange for cash payments and other inducements (AT.39686), Latest development On 18 October 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): (i) the settlement agreement constituted a restriction of competition; (ii) the Commission had been correct to find that the settlement agreement did not entail proven pro-competitive effects that were capable of casting reasonable doubt on the anti-competitive object of that agreement; (iii)

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 September 2020; 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 20 July 2017 which found that Slovakia’s €5m direct grant to NAJPI concerning an investment in a new plant for the extraction of glass sand did not constitute unlawful State aid (Case SA.38121) Latest developments On 9 September 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal, thereby annulling the Contested Decision in is entirety. Parties Applicants:• Kerkosand spol. s.r.o. (Šajdíkové Humence, Slovak Republic) (hereafter, Kerkosand)Defendant:• European Commission (hereafter, the Commission) Background Background In 2013, Slovakia approved a direct grant of €5m to NAJPI for an initial investment in a new plant for the extraction of glass sand in the Západné Slovensko region. According to Slovakia, the investment aid granted to NAJPI was to support the development of the region.Commission’s investigation On 12 December