CASE HUB (date of judgment—26/01/2017) 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Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 26 January 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought by the European Commission and large number of appellants against the judgments of the General Court upholding, for the most part (and fully on substance), the Commission decision of 23 June 2010 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €622m on bathroom equipment manufacturers for their alleged participation in a single and continuous infringement in the bathroom fixtures and fittings sector ('Bathroom fittings and fixtures cartel'). The General Court annulled, in part, the decision as it relates to Roca Sanitario, Keramag Keramische Werke AG (KKW) and Sanitec (the latter as part of a joined action with KKW) and thus reduced the jointly and severally imposed fines. The Commission's separate appeal is brought in relation to the General Court's judgment annulling, in part, the decision

CASE HUB (date of judgments—09/06/2016) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 3 October 2007 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing a fine of €83.85m on CEPSA/PROAS for their alleged participation in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel concerning the supply of bitumen in Spain between 1991 and 2002 ('Spanish bitumen cartel'). On 9 June 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety. This case focuses, amongst other things, on issues regarding (and the implications of) allegedly excessive duration of contentious proceedings before the EU Courts. Parties Appellants: • Compañía Española de Petróleos SA (CEPSA)• Productos Asfálticos SA (PROAS)Other party: European Commission CEPSA is an international group of companies in the energy sector and active in Spain and beyond in the supply of road-building bitumen.

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 02 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Cases C- 647/19 Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission and C- 665/19 NeXovation v Commission —appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 353/15 and T- 373/15 which dismissed as inadmissible in part and unfounded as to the reminder actions for annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning aid measures granted by Germany between 2002–2012 in respect of the German race track, Nürburgring (SA.31550). Latest development On 2 September 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in which it partially upheld the appeals. In particular, the Court of Justice ruled that the Commission erred in its assessment of whether the financing of Capricorn’s bid had been secured by Deutsche Bank. Parties Appellants;• Ja zum Nürburgring (JZN)• NeXovation, Inc (NeXovation)Defendent:• European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Motorsport. Background Background Between 2002 and 2012, Germany granted a number

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 March 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals of the General Court judgments in Case T- 583/18 and T- 597/18 which dismissed actions for annulment against the Commission’s decision in relation to national legislation concerning local transport in the Land of Lower Saxony did not constitute State aid (Cases SA.46538 and SA.46697). Latest development On 24 March 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it each of the appeals. The Court of Justice held that the General Court had made no errors in concluding that the contested measure did not entail any direct or indirect transfer of state resources to undertakings. Furthermore, the General Court did not err in law in finding that transport at municipal level (AOTs) could not be classified as undertakings with regard to the role assigned to them by Article 7a of the NNVG and that their activity as

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 Related/similar cases Case C‑97/08 P Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (in particular, paras 59 and 61 establishing possibility

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court's judgments against the General Court judgments in Cases T- 255/1, T–254/17 and T- 249/17 partially annulling the Commission’s decisions in AT.40466 and AT.40467 which authorised dawn raids in relation to suspected information sharing between companies active in the supply of hygiene and cleaning products. Outcome On 9 March 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in which it set aside in part the judgments of the General Court and, consequently, annulled the Commission's decisions ordering the dawn raids. In particular the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the Commission should have recorded the interviews it conducted with suppliers of those undertakings so as to be able to use the information from

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position of the judgment of 16 June 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the Court of Justice of the General Court’s dismissal of appeals in Cases T- 762/15, T- 763/15, T- 772/15, and T- 8/6 dismissing actions for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 (Case AT.39639). Outcome On 16 June 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it set aside the General Court’s judgments and partially annulled the decision of the Commission, but it upheld the amounts of fines imposed. Parties Appellants:• Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc (together, Sony)• Sony Optiarc, Inc and Sony Optiarc America, Inc (together Sony Optiarc)• Qunata Storage, Inc (Quanta)• Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp, Toshiba

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Case C- 702/19 Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuserv Commission—appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 582/15 which dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning a retail food packaging trays cartel (AT.39563). Latest development On 22 October 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellant:• Silver Plastics Gmbh and Johannes Refifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (together, Silver Plastics)• Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Market(s) Retail food packaging trays. Rigid retail food packaging trays are made of either polystyrene foam or polypropylene. They are used for packaging food sold in shops or supermarkets, eg cheese, meat, fish or cake. Although the cost of each tray is minimal (a few Euro cents each), retailers use billions of trays every

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 13 July 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in T- 342/18 and T- 363/18 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission’s decision fining Nichicon and Nippon for their participation in a cartel in the aluminium and tantalum electrolytic capacitors sector (AT.40136) Latest development On 13 July 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed both appeals in their entirety. Parties • Applicants: Nichicon Corporation (Nichicon)Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation (Nippon)• Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Background The investigation started in March 2014 with investigative measures being carried out by several competition authorities throughout the world (including information requests sent by the Commission), with subsequent investigative measures following this date. The Commission confirmed that it was investigating in early June 2015.On 4 November 2015, the Commission announced that it had

CASE HUB (date of judgment—21/09/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought against judgments of the General Court upholding (for the most part) the Commission's re-adopted decision of 30 September 2009 (as amended by a subsequent decision of 8 December 2009) relating to a proceeding previously pursued under Article 65 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty (ECSC) which found infringements and imposed combined fines of €85m (now €83.25m under the re-adopted decision) on a number of steel making companies for their alleged participation in a price-fixing cartel concerning the supply of concrete bars in Italy between 1989 and 2000 ('Reinforcing bars cartel').On 21 September 2017, the Court of Justice upheld the appeals and, therefore, set aside the General Court judgments and annulled the contested Commission decision—in particular, concluding that the appellants’ rights of defence were infringed having been denied an opportunity to

CASE HUB (date of judgments—16/02/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 16 February 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 1 October 2008 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposing combined fines of €36m on Hansen & Rosenthal/Tudapetrol group companies for their alleged participation in a European-wide cartel concerning the supply of paraffin waxes ('Candle waxes cartel').On 16 February 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Appellants: • H&R ChemPharm (ChemPharm)• Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen (TMNH) • Hansen & Rosenthal KG (Hansen & Rosenthal) • H&R Wax Company Vertrieb (Vertrieb)Other party: European Commission The Hansen & Rosenthal Group is active world-wide in petroleum-based products. TMNH was a sales

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 20 December 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court of the European Commission’s decision finding infringements and imposing fines on three banks that did not settle in relation to their participation in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914) Latest developments On 20 December 2023, the General Court issued its judgments in which it partially upheld the appeals. Parties Applicants:• JP Morgan Chase• Crédit AgricoleDefendant:• European Commission Background Commission’s 2013 decision On 19 October 2011, the Commission carried out dawn raids in relation to a suspected cartel in the EIRD market. On 4 December 2013, the Commission announced that four banks (Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale and RBS) had settled with the Commission and were fined a combined €1.043bn (the Commission’s