CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 124/21 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 December 2020; it is no longer maintained.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 relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal against the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2017 which found that the International Skating Union (ISU) rules imposing severe penalties on athletes participating in ISU-unauthorised competitions were in breach of EU antitrust law (AT.40208). Outcome On 16 December 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it partially upheld the appeal. More specifically, the General Court confirmed that the classification of a restriction of competition by object established by the Commission in respect of the ISU’s eligibility rules well founded, but partially annulled the Commission’s 2017 decision as regards ISU’s arbitration rules. Parties Applicant:• International Skating Union (ISU)Defendant: • European Commission The ISU is the sole international sports federation recognised by the International Olympic Committee for the purpose of managing and administering figure skating

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment 8 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action before the General Court seeking compensation from the Commission following the General Court’s judgment of 7 November 2019 in Case T- 240/17, which reduced the fine imposed on Campine NV and Campine Recycling NV for their participation in the car battery recycling cartel from €8,158,000 to €4,275,648. Latest developments On 8 March 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it held that Campanie and Campine Recycling can get compensation for the Commission’s refusal to pay default interest for a partially annulled infringement decision and reduced the fine in relation to its role in the car battery recycling purchasing cartel. Applying the principles established in the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 301/19 P Commission v Printeos, the General Court accepted Campine’s claims. It ordered the Commission to pay: (i) compensation in the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 December 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/similar cases Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court seeking cancellation or reduction of the €4.729m fine imposed (jointly and severally) on Printeos and its Tompla subsidiaries under the Commission's settlement decision of 14 December 2014 in relation to Tompla's participation in a price-fixing cartel concerning the supply of envelopes in Europe ('Envelopes cartel'). This matter focuses solely on issues regarding the calculation of fines and, in particular, the Commission's discretion (under paragraph 37 of the 2006 Fining Guidelines) to depart, in specific cases, from the Guidelines' general methodology for the setting of fines. This might be the case, for example, to ensure that fines imposed are proportionate in the circumstances (and to, amongst other things, reflect differences between participants in a cartel). It is the applicants’ claim in this case that the Commission failed to adequately explain why and on what basis it exercised this

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Referral back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-434/13 P Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing (formerly Parker ITR) and Parker-Hannifin, an appeal to the Court of Justice of the General Court judgment partially annulling the Commission decision in Case COMP/39.406 (Marine hoses cartel). On 14 July 2016, the General Court issued its judgment, partially allowing the appeal and amending the fines imposed on Parker Hannifin Manufacturing (formerly Parker ITR) and Parker-Hannifin. However the judgment dismissed the remainder of the action and, in particular, reconfirmed that the Commission had (despite what the General Court had determined in its previous judgment) correctly established that Parker ITR should be liable for the whole duration of the alleged infringement. This main interest in this matter is the focus on the principle of 'economic continuity'—particularly

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the General Court of Commission Decision C (2017) 249 final of 13 January 2017, by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s request for access to documents in relation to SA.40224. Latest developments On 31 January 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the action in its entirety. Parties Applicant:• CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (hereafter, CBA). CBA is an Austrian company whose main activity is the organization and operation of casinos in Austria and other countries in the EU.Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 15 December 2014, CBA made a complaint to the Commission requesting the opening of State aid proceedings against Austria in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU. In short, CBA alleged that illegal State aid had been granted by Austria to its competitor, Casinos

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 October 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 19 February 2018 finding that compensations granted by the Czech Republic to Česká pošta for the performance of its postal activities under a USO for the period 2013 to 2017 did not constitute unlawful State aid (SA.45281 and SA.44859). Latest developments On 15 October 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Applicants:• Mediaservis s. r. o (now První novinová společnost a.s) (hereafter, Mediaservis)Defendant:• European Commission (hereafter, the Commission) Background Background to the dispute On 22 February 2013, the Czech Telecommunications Regulatory Authority designated Česká pošta s.p. (a company wholly owned by the Czech Republic) (hereafter, Česká pošta) as the postal service provider under the universal service obligation (the USO) until 31 December 2017. By the above decision,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 May 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment of the Commission decision (SA.34572) which declared that numerous guarantees given to Larko amounted to illegal State aid that was remitted back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 244/18. Latest developments On 4 May 2022, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal. Parties Appellant:• Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Larko)Respondent:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Larko is a large undertaking specialising in the extraction and processing of laterite ore, the extraction of lignite and the production of ferronickel and its by-products.Larko was established in 1989 as a new entity following the liquidation of Hellenic Mining and Metallurgical SA. At the time of the relevant facts, Larko had three shareholders: (1) the Greek State (which held 55.2% of its shares through the intermediary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The illegality defence/ex turpi causa did not apply where the claimant had been found not guilty of murder or manslaughter by reason of insanity. Written by Selena Plowden KC and Christopher Johnson who represent the claimant in this case, barristers at Guildhall Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers respectively.

Looking at key cases in the world of commercial and contract law in England and Wales and from the Court of Justice between 2013 and 2016. For cases after 1 January 2017, see: Commercial Tracker. For case law relating to public procurement, please see the detailed: UK public procurement case tracker and EU public procurement case tracker run by our colleagues in Lexis® Public Law. High Court Case Key date Where we are 118 Data Resource Ltd v IDS Data Services Ltd: [2014] EWHC 3629 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 57 (Nov) Judgment date: 5 November 2014 Contract: the claimant (licensor) and the respondent (licensee) operated rival businesses compiling and exploiting databases of UK business contact details. Despite being competitors, in April 2009 the licensor licensed use of its database to the licensee. The licensor came to suspect that the licensee had breached the terms of the licence agreement. It sought summary judgment for orders based on specific performance to inspect the licensee’s premises and records. The High Court held that the orders sought by the

There are various definitions of cohabitation within case law. Under the remedies available to cohabitants, the first step will be to establish that the relationship is sufficient to satisfy a specific remedy. The question of whether cohabitation has taken place may also arise on the breakdown of a marriage or civil partnership, eg when considering the significance of pre-marital/civil partnership cohabitation in financial proceedings. See also Practice Notes: • Statutory and other definitions of cohabitation • The age of the parties and the length of the marriage or civil partnership • Eligibility to apply under TOLATA 1996 • Rights on death of cohabitant • Family provision claims—the cohabitant Factors Of the various definitions that have arisen within case law, a generally accepted list of potential influencing factors is (per Kimber v Kimber): • whether the parties are members of the same household and share their daily life • the parties' intention and motivation • whether there is stability to their relationship • whether there is an aspect of financial support and pooling/sharing of finances • whether there is a sexual relationship

It is correct that the case law in this field has almost entirely focused upon the relevance of cohabitation to the issue of ongoing spousal periodical payments, rather than capital. In Grey v Grey in the context of spousal periodical payments, the Court of Appeal observed that ‘in some cases cohabitation will weigh heavily in the scales, in others it will not’ (at [para 51]), and if present, it is open to a judge to ‘discount’ a periodical payments claim ([para 45]) to reflect what the cohabitant ought to be contributing to the other’s domestic economy. In a post-Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane world, capital distribution is normally dictated by considerations

This Practice Note provides guidance on case law in relation to claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), including the leading decisions in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott. It also considers case law regarding the welfare of any minor and the interests of any secured creditor of any beneficiary. See also Practice Note: Eligibility to apply under TOLATA 1996, as to relevant matters for the court and the court's powers. In relation to practice and procedure, see Practice Notes: • TOLATA 1996—pre-action matters • TOLATA 1996—when to issue in the County Court and when to issue in the High Court • TOLATA 1996—when to use Part 7 and when to use Part 8 • TOLATA 1996—procedure • TOLATA 1996—Part 36 offers Stack v Dowden The leading case regarding cohabitant disputes is Stack v Dowden, in which the House of Lords’ primary concern was the effect of a conveyance into joint names without an express declaration of the beneficial interests. In her leading