CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals brought by three appellants and the European Commission against the judgments of the General Court that dismissed the appellants' actions for annulment of the Commission decision of 11 March 2008 (as amended by a subsequent decision of 24 July 2009) that imposed fines (partially amended by the subsequent decision) on the Gosselin Group, Team Relocations and Ziegler (and others) for their participation in a cartel for the supply of international removal services in Belgium ('International removal services' cartel). In addition, the General Court annulled the decision and the fine imposed, as it relates to Gosselin's parent company, Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje (the matter for which the Commission brought its appeal). This matter focuses (amongst other things) on issues of joint and

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals brought by the European Commission and four appellants against the judgments of the General Court upholding, for the most part and in substance, the Commission decision of 3 May 2006 that imposed fines on the parties (and others) for their participation in a cartel for the supply of hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate—though annulling, in part, the decision as it relates to Solvay and thus reducing the individual fine imposed (a matter for which the Commission brought a cross-appeal). The Commission's separate appeal is brought in relation to the General Court's judgment annulling the decision (and the fine) as it relates to Edison's alleged participation in the infringement. This matter focuses primarily on issues regarding the imputability of the anti-competitive practices of a subsidiary to its parent company, including consideration of the criterion of 'economic continuity' and rebutting

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 612/17 which partially upheld an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 27 June 2017 in Google Search (Shopping) (AT.39740). Outcome On 11 January 2024, Advocate General Kokott delivered her opinion in which she proposed that the Court of Justice confirm the fine of €2.4bn imposed on Google for favouring its own comparison shopping service. Parties Appellant:• Google LLC, Alphabet, Inc (together Google)Defendants:• The European Commission Background Commission investigation The Commission formally opened an investigation in November 2011 after receiving a number of complaints, including from search service providers about unfavourable treatment of their services in Google’s unpaid and sponsored search results coupled with an alleged preferential placement of Google’s own services.On 15 April 2015, the Commission announced that it had opened formal proceedings to investigate whether Google has breached Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU by virtue of its conduct in relation to certain conditions in Google’s agreements for the use of Android and Google’s  proprietary

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position of the judgment of 6 October 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 239/11, T- 219/10, T- 227/10, T- 399/11, T- 405/11 and T- 406/11 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission decisions dated 28/10/2008 and 12/01/2008 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions implemented by Spain. Latest developments On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. In particular, the Court of Justice agreed with Advocate General Pitruzzella that the General Court has made no errors in finding that the measures at issues were selective. Parties Appellants:• Sigma Alimentos Exterior S.L. (Sigma)•

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 30 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 325/16 and T- 621/16 which sought annulment of two Commission decisions ordering dawn raids (the first in relation to Case AT.40156—Falcon and the second in relation to Case AT.40401—Twins). Latest development On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Appellant: České dráhy (CD), the main railway operator in the Czech Republic.Defendant: European Commission Background AT.40156—Falcon The Commission’s ongoing investigation in Falcon (AT.40156) is in relation to alleged exclusionary abuses (under Article 102 TFEU) on the rail route between Prague and Ostrava. In 2011 and 2012, two new rail operators, RegioJet and LEO Express, launched passenger rail services on the route between Prague and Ostrava (a city in the north-east of the Czech

CASE HUB (referred back to the General Court in Cases T- 169/08 RENV and T- 421/09 RENV–see Cases T-169/08 RENV DEI v Commission and T-421/09 RENV DEI v Commission (Greek lignite) [Archived]) ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals brought by the European Commission against (1) the judgment of the General Court annulling the Commission decision of 5 March 2008 ('contested decision') which declared incompatible with Article 86(1) EC (read in conjunction with Article 82 EC) the retention by the Greek state of preferential rights in favour of the public undertaking Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits, and (2) against a subsequent judgment of the General Court which (as a result of its annulment of the contested decision) annulled the Commission decision of 4 August 2009 which had established specific measures

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Cases C- 562/19 Commission v Poland and Case C– 596/19 Commission v Hungary—appeals to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 836/19 and T- 20/17 upholding actions for annulment of Commission’s decisions which found that a Polish tax applied to the retail sector based on progressive turnover tax rates (Case SA.44351) and Hungarian tax advertisement constituted State aid (Case SA.44351) constituted State aid. Latest development On 16 March 2021, the Court of Justice issues its judgments in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. The Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that Member States are free to establish the system of taxation which they deem most appropriate, so that the application of progressive taxation falls within the discretion of each Member State, provided that the characteristics

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 19 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timelinecommentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Cases C- 582/18 P Viscas Corp v Commission, C– 589/18 P Furukawa Electric Co Ltd v Commission and C- 590/18 P v Commission—appeals to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 422/14, T- 444/14 and T- 451/14 dismissing actions for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Latest development On 28 November 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in Cases C- 582/18 P Viscas Corp v Commission, C- 589/18 P Furukawa Electric Co Ltd v Commission and C- 590/18 P Fujikura Ltd v Commission, appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 422/14, T- 444/14 and T- 451/14 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission’s

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 25 March 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Cases C- 586/16 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission, C- 588/16 Generics (UK) v Commission, C- 591/16 P Lundbeck v Commission, C- 601/16 Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission, C- 611/16 Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission and C- 614/13 Merck v Commission—appeals to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 460/13, T- 467/13, T-469/13, T- 470/13, T-471/13 and T- 472/13 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2013 finding four infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €146m

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 28 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Cases C- 591/18 Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v Commission, C– 593/18 P ABB Ltd and ABB AB v Commission and C- 596/18 P LS Cable & System Ltd Commission—appeals to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 441/14, T- 445/14 and T- 439/14 dismissing actions for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Latest development On 28 November 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in Cases C- 591/18 P Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke AG Holding v Commission, C- 593 ABB Ltd and ABB AB v Commission and C- 596/18 P LS Cable & System

CASE HUB (date of judgments—17/09/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decisions of 17 September 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals brought by Total SA and its subsidiary Total Marketing Services (successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing and formerly Total France at the material time of the alleged infringement) against the judgments of the General Court upholding, as regards the substance, the Commission decision of 15 October 2008 finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €128.163m (jointly and severally) on Total and its subsidiary for their alleged participation in a cartel concerning the supply of paraffin and slack waxes between 1992 and 2005 ('candle waxes cartel') but ordering a minor reduction in Total Raffinage's fine based on irregularities in the fine's calculation. On 17 September 2015, the Court of Justice dismissed Total Marketing Services’ appeal but upheld in part Total SA's appeal on the basis that

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline , commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 601/18 P Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 475/14 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission's decision in the high-voltage power cables cartel (AT.39610). Latest development On 24 September 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the General Court had not made an error in: (i) concluding that the Commission was entitled to make copy-images of the hard drives of computers of three Prysmian employees during the dawn raid at Prysmian’s premises without first examining the nature of the documents which were contained in those hard drives (including their relevance to the inspection) and to