CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 March 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Cases C- 117/20 bpost v Autorité belge de la concurrence and C- 151/20 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Nordzucker AG and Others—national references from Belgium respectively seeking clarification on the protection against double jeopardy (the principle ne bis in idem) under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Latest developments On 22 March 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it ruled that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude a second investigation by another Member State authority, so long as there is coordination between authorities and there are clear rules to give companies predictability. The Court of Justice did not follow Advocate General Bobek’s opinion of 2 September 2021. He suggested that the application of the ne bis in idem principle should

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 June 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court's judgments that partially upheld the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 fining Servier and a number of generic company competitors for practices that delayed generic entry of perindopril (AT.39612). Outcome On 27 June 2024, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. The Court of Justice dismissed the appeals of Lupin, Niche Generics, Unichem Laboratories, Matrix, Tevan and Biogaran, thereby upholding the General Court’s judgments finding that the agreements concluded by Servier and Biogaran constituted market-exclusion

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 25 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, related cases and commentary Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 827/14 Deutsche Telekom v Commission and T- 851/14 Slovak Telekom v Commission which partially annulled the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 which found Deutsche Telekom and its subsidiary Slovak Telekom infringed Article 102 TFEU by pursuing, for more than five years, an abusive strategy to exclude competitors in the Slovak broadband market (AT.39523). Latest development On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice ruled that the Commission need not show that access to a particular infrastructure is ‘indispensable’ for the purpose of proving abusive conduct, provided such access is mandated by regulation. Parties Appellants:• Slovak Telecom a.s. (ST) and Deutsche

CASE HUB (date of judgments—16/06/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decisions of 16 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court upholding (on substance though reducing slightly the individual fine imposed on Evonik Degussa) the Commission decision of 22 July 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing fines of €13.3m on SKW Stahl-Metallurgie and €3.7m (reduced from €4.7m by the General Court) on Evonik Degussa in relation to SKW Stahl-Metallurgie's alleged participation in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007 ('Calcium carbide cartel'). On 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety. The Evonik Degussa appeal is notable insofar as it provides a further opportunity to review the rules relating to 'parental company liability'—clarifying under what conditions it is possible to reverse

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 March 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals of the General Court judgments in Case T- 683/15 and Joined Cases T- 722/15, T- 723/15 and T- 724/15 which upheld actions for annulment against the Commission’s decision in relation to the financing of milk quality tests in Bavaria (SA.35484). Latest development On 10 March 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Appellants:• European Commission (the Commission)Defendents:• Freistaat Bayern• Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e.V., Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e.V. and Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft e.V (together, the Respondents) Market(s) Milk. Background The German Milk and Fat Law In 2011/2012, the Commission requested additional information from Germany in relation to its 2010 Annual Report on State aid in the agricultural sector. In the light of the answers provided by Germany, the Commission

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals brought against judgments of the General Court dismissing actions for the annulment of the Commission decision (partially amended by a subsequent decision) imposing fines totalling €247.6m (partially amended by the subsequent decision) on the Dow Chemical Company and EI du Pont de Nemours and three other companies for their alleged participation in a EEA-wide chloroprene rubber cartel between 1993 and 2002. This cases focuses on circumstances in which parent companies may be held liable for the EU competition law infringements of their subsidiaries—including in relation to full-function joint ventures. Parties Appellants:• EI du Pont de Nemours (DuPont)• Dow Chemical Company (Dow) Other parties:• DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC• DuPont Performance Elastomers SA• European Commission Background • In March and July 2003, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the European premises of a two companies operating in chloroprene rubber

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 286/09 RENV (following referral back by the Court of Justice) which partially annulled the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 finding an infringement and imposing a fine on Intel Corporation for its alleged abuse of a dominant position in relation to conditional rebates and loyalty payments (Case AT.37990). Outcome On 18 January 2024, Advocate General Medina delivered her opinion in which she proposed that the Court of Justice should dismiss the appeal. Advocate General Medina considered only two of the Commission’s grounds of appeal relating to alleged errors by the General Court in considering the application of the as-efficient-competitor test (AEC) test to the exclusivity rebates granted by Intel Corporation to Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Lenovo Group Ltd (Lenovo). In particular, Advocate General Medina held (amongst other things) that: (i) none of the Commission’s submissions are capable of call into question the General Court’s conclusion that the Commission’s decision failed to demonstrate the foreclosure

CASE HUB (date of judgments—10/03/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 March 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court upholding (for the most part) the Commission decisions of 30 March 2011 ordering the addressees (companies active in the supply of cement and related products) to supply information in the context of (what was then) an on-going investigation into suspected anti-competitive practices in the European-wide markets for cement and related products. On 31 July 2015, the Commission closed its investigation confirming that the evidence obtained was not sufficiently conclusive to confirm its initial concerns. On 10 March 2016, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court judgments and annulled the contested decisions. These cases focus, amongst other things, on issues regarding the proper and legal exercise of the Commission's

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 1 February 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts ARCHIVE—01/02/2018 Outline Cases C- 261/16 Kühne + Nagel International and Others v Commission, C- 264/16 Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission, C- 263/16 Schenker v Commission and C- 271/16 Panalpina World Transport (Holding) and Others v Commission–appeals to the Court of Justice of the General Court’s judgment dismissing actions for the annulment of the European Commission decision finding infringements and imposing fines on international freight forwarders in relation to their alleged participation in four distinct cartels for freight forwarding services. Outcome On 1 February 2018, the Court of Justice issued its judgments, dismissing the appeals in their entirety, thus confirming the judgments of the General Court and the fines imposed by the Commission. In particular, the Court of Justice confirmed that the General Court was correct in upholding the Commission’s approach

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 378/20 and T- 379/20 dismissing actions for annulment of the Commission decisions of 15 April 2020 and 24 April 2020 approving two separate guarantees on a revolving credit facility of up to SEK 1.5bn in favour of Scandinavian airline SAS for damage caused by the coronavirus outbreak (SA.56795 and SA.5601). Latest developments On 28 September 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. In particular, it: (i) dismissed Ryanair's arguments challenging the assessment of the proportionality of the aid measures; (ii) rejected Ryanair’s arguments alleging that the measures breached the principle of non-discrimination; (iii) held that the General Court had been correct to find that the aid measures did not breach the principles of freedom of establishment

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 May 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals brought by Plásticos Españoles SA and its parent company Armando Álvarez SA against the judgments of the General Court dismissing their actions for annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005 that imposed a fine on Plásticos Españoles SA and Álvarez (joint and severally) for their participation in a cartel for the supply of industrial plastic bags in the EEA ('Industrial bags cartel').This matter raises issues regarding the imputability of a subsidiary's' illegal behaviour to its parent and the requirements for establishing a 'single and continuous' infringement. Parties Appellants: • Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA)• Armando Álvarez SA (Álvarez) Other party: European Commission ASPLA is Spanish company active in the manufacture and supply of plastic products (including industrial bags), with subsidiaries in France and Portugal. Álvarez is the Spanish parent company of a group of companies operating in the engineering,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 26 November 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court dismissing the appellants' actions for annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2005 that imposed fines on Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Groupe Gascogne SA and Kendrion NV for their participation in a cartel for the supply of industrial plastic bags in the EEA ('Industrial bags cartel').On 26 November 2013, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety. This matter focuses on the imputability of a subsidiary's' illegal behaviour to its parent, including in circumstances where the subsidiary directly involved has been bought and then sold off within a short period of time. The case also focuses on the issue of adjudication within a reasonable period of time (and, in particular, whether