CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases NOTE—appeal lodged by Telefónica at Court of Justice in Case C- 487/16 Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 23 January 2013 finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing individual fines of €12.29m and €66.89m respectively on Portugal Telecom and Telefónica for having agreed a non-compete clause (one allegedly amounting to a market sharing arrangement on Iberian telecommunication markets). On 28 June 2016, the General Court dismissed for the most part the actions brought by Portugal Telecom and Telefónica—confirming that the Commission was not obliged, as Portugal Telecom and Telefónica argued, to undertake a detailed analysis of the structure of the markets concerned and of potential competition between companies on those markets in order to conclude that the clause constituted

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 5 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 682/20 P, C- 690/20 and C- 682/20. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission 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 5 October 2020, the General Court issued three judgments. The General Court partially annulled a part of the Commission’s 2017 dawn decisions relating to one of the alleged infringements. It held that the Commission had failed to show that it had sufficiently strong evidence to suspect exchanges of information concerning the future commercial strategies of the supermarket chains. The General Court therefore annulled

CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the Court of Justice in Cases C- 271/16 (Panalpina), Case C- 264/16 (Deutsche Bahn), C-262/16 (Schenker) and Case C- 261/16 (Kühne + Nagel)) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 29 February 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment (in whole or in part) and/or substantial reduction in the levels of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 28 March 2012 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €169mm on 14 undertakings active in the supply of international freight forwarding services for their alleged participation in four distinct global cartels for freight forwarding services ('Freight forwarding cartel'). On 29 February 2016, the General Court dismissed the actions in their entirety save for a very minor tweak in the fine imposed on UTi (reduced from €3.07m to €2.97m).The matter highlights,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 February 2014 ; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts ARCHIVE—06/02/2014 Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions in fines regarding the Commission's decision of 11 November 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing fines in relation to: (1) Elf Aquitaine and its group companies' participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers; and (2) consultancy firm AC-Treuhand's alleged role as cartel facilitator. Parties Applicants:• Elf Aquitaine SA (Elf)• Arkema France (Arkema) • CECA SA (CECA)• AC-Treuhand AG (AC-Treuhand) Defendant: European Commission AC-Treuhand is a Swiss consulting company offering a 'full range of services tailored to the national and international associations and interest groups' and, according to the company, the 'management and administration as well as Swiss

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—14/03/2014 Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2011 ordering the addressees 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 14 March 2014, the General Court dismissed in their entirety the actions save for the action brought by Schwenk Zement which was partially upheld. On 31 July 2015, the Commission closed its investigation confirming that the evidence obtained was not sufficiently conclusive to confirm its initial concerns. These cases focus, amongst other things, on issues regarding the proper and legal exercise of Commission powers to issue information requests under Article 18 Regulation 1/2003. Parties Applicants:• Holcim (Deutschland) AG• Holcim Ltd• Buzzi Unicem SpA• Cemex SAB de CV • New Sunward Holding BV•

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 470/23, C- 469/20 and C- 468/20, C- 467/20, C- 466/20, C- 465/20 and C- 464/20, C- 484/20 and C- 485/20 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments 17 May 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, Case facts Outline Actions before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 February 2019 to unconditionally clear the acquisition by RWE of E.On’s renewable and nuclear electricity generation (M.8872). Latest developments On 17 May 2023, the General Court issued 11 judgments. In six of the actions the General Court dismissed the appeals in

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 378/22 P, C- 375/22 P, C- 370/22 P, C- 369/22 P and C- 367/22 P, C- 382/22 P, C- 381/22 P, C- 380/22 P, C- 379/22 P, C- 378/22 P, Case C- 385/22, C- 386/22 and C- 403/22 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of judgment of 30 March 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court

CASE HUB (appeal lodged at the Court of Justice by Evonik in Case C– 162/15) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 28 January 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 24 May 2012 refusing the applicants' requests for confidential treatment of information set to be included in the published version of the 'Hydrogen peroxide and perborate cartel' decision. On 28 January 2015, the General Court dismissed Akzo and Degussa's actions for annulment. This case focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for dealing with requests for confidential treatment of information—in particular, in relation to information provided as part of leniency application (ie balancing the interests of such applicants and the integrity/efficacy of the leniency procedure versus the interests of would-be damages claimants). Parties Applicants:• Akzo Nobel NV • Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases Case facts (ARCHIVE—16/09/2013) Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission's 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'). On 16 September 2013, the General Court dismissed in their entirety the actions brought by Masco, Mamoli, Zucchetti, Rubinetteria Cisal, Laufen, Dornbracht and Hansa Metallwerke. However the General Court partially annulled the decisions in the remaining cases and, in relation to four of these actions brought, reduced the fines imposed on the applicants (most notably in relation to Ideal Standard/Wabco whose fine was reduced

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 353/21, C- 321/21 and C- 320/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 14 April 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Cases T- 378/20 Ryanair v Commission, T- 379/20 Ryanair v Commission and T- 388/20 Ryanair v Commission—actions for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decisions of 15 April 2020, 24 April and 18 May 2020 approving three State aid measures in Denmark, Sweden and Finland respectively to support airlines in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic (Cases SA.56795, SA.57601 and SA.56809). Latest developments On 14 April 2021, the General Court issued three judgments in which it dismissed each of Ryanair’s appeals in their entirety. In relation to the Danish and Swedish aid measures for SAS, the General Court held that: (i) the Commission was entitled to rely on Article 107(2)(b) to

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 January 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in fines regarding the Commission's decision of 22 July 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing combined fines of €61.1m on nine companies for their alleged participation in a calcium carbide and magnesium cartel between 2004 and 2007. SKW Stahl-Metallurige was fined for its direct participation in the cartel. Evonik Degussa and Gigaset were held liable and fined on the grounds of parental liability (Evonik Degussa having been SKW Stahl-Metallurige's parent for a brief period after the cartel commenced before selling to Gigaset in 2004 which, in turn, subsequently sold SKW Stahl-Metallurige after the cartel activity was brought to an end).SKW Stahl-Metallurige was fined €13.3m for which it was jointly and severally

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 June 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and reductions in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission decision of 25 June 2008 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines of €1.7m and €1.6m on Société des Industries Chimiques du Fluor and Fluorsid SpA/Minmet (respectively) for their alleged participation in a global aluminium fluoride cartel between 12 July 2000 to 31 December 2000. The matter is of note as it marked the first time the Commission has applied point 18 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines, providing a calculation method for cartels that are geographically wider than the European Economic Area (EEA). This is because all members of the cartel, independent of their actual sales in the EEA, contributed to the cartel insofar as it affected