CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases NOTE—appeal lodged by Toshiba at Court of Justice in Case C- 180/16 Toshiba v Commission Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in the levels of fines imposed regarding the Commission's amended decision of 27 June 2012 (amending the Commission’s original decision of 24 January 2007) finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement and re-imposing fines of €56.79m and €74.82m on Toshiba and Mitsubishi Electric (respectively) for their alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of gas insulated switchgear (‘Switchgear cartel'). On 19 January 2016, the General Court dismissed the actions in their entirety and, therefore, upheld the revised fines imposed by the Commission under the amended decision. This matter focuses, amongst other things, on issues relating to the calculation of fine (and, in particular,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Third party merger appeals against the remedy implementation in relation to the conditional clearance decision in Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (M.7018), seeking either the annulment of certain remedy-related decisions by the Commission in relation to the implementation of the commitments given in Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus or, alternatively, the annulment of the clearance decision itself. Latest development On 9 October 2018, the General Court issued its judgments in which it dismissed third party actions by 1&1 Telecom, Multiconnect and Mass Response Service against the remedy implementation in relation to the Commission’s decision to conditionally approve the acquisition of E-Plus by Telefónica Deutschland (Case M.7018). The General Court concluded that all three appeals were inadmissible. Parties Applicants:• 1&1 Telecom GmbH (1&1 Telecom) (Case T- 43/16)

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12/04/2013; it is no longer maintained.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's decision of 16 July 2008 prohibiting 24 European collecting societies from restricting competition, in particular by limiting their ability to offer their services to authors and commercial users outside their domestic territory. On 12 April 2013, the General Court annulled (for CISAC and for 20 of the collecting societies concerned) the decision in respect of the finding of a concerted practice but dismissed the applicants' actions in relation to the finding that individual provisions in the agreements infringed Article 101(1) TFEU. The matter concerns the conditions of management and licensing, by collecting societies, of authors' public performance rights of musical works—focusing on whether specific agreements between collecting societies are used to create artificial barriers to the provision of music across borders. Parties Applicants: International Confederation

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases NOTE–appeal lodged by Akzo Nobel at Court of Justice in Case C-516/15 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Heat stabilisers cartel) Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and/or a reduction in fine regarding the Commission's decision of 11 November 2009 (as amended by subsequent amending decisions) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing fines of €168.4m and €3.803m on Akzo Group and GEA Group respectively in relation to their alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers ('Heat stabilisers cartel'). On 15 July 2015, the General Court partially annulled the infringement decision insofar as it relates to the fines imposed on Akzo and annulled

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 496/23 and C- 497/23 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 May 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of an information request issued by the European Commission in the context of suspected anticompetitive behaviour by the Facebook group in its use of data and in the management of its social network platform (Case AT.40628 and AT.40684). Latest developments On 24 May 2023, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals Parties Applicants:• Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd) (hereafter, Meta Ireland) Background Commission investigation Case AT.40628—Facebook Data-related practices On the basis of suspicions of anticompetitive behaviour by the Facebook group in its use of data and in the management of its social network platform, the Commission, by decision of 4 May 2020, sent

CASE HUB (date of judgments—15/07/2015) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/similar cases NOTE—appeal lodged by AGC at Court of Justice in Case C- 517/15 Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decisions of 6 August 2012 under which the Hearing Office refused the applicants’ requests for confidential treatment of certain information (information provided by Degussa in the course of its leniency application) set to be included in the published version of the 'Car glass cartel' decision. On 15 July 2015, the General Court dismissed AGC's action in its entirety and dismissed, for the most part, Pilkington's action (only partially annulling the Commission decision insofar as the Hearing Officer explicitly rejected Pilkington's request for confidentiality for a specific recital—redaction of which DG COMP had already accepted).  This matter focuses on the Commission's procedure and discretion for

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 441/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 19 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Cases T- 465/20 Ryanair v Commission, T- 628/20 Ryanair v Commission and T- 642/20 Ryanair v Commission—actions for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decisions of 10 June 2020, 13 July 2020 and 31 July 2020 approving three State aid measures in Portugal, the Netherlands and Spain respectively to support airlines in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic (Cases SA.57369, SA.57659 and SA.57116). Latest developments On 19 May 2021, the General Court issued three judgments in which it: (i) upheld and annulled the Commission’s decisions regarding support measures granted by Portugal to the airline TAP and a Dutch liquidity scheme to support the airline KLM for lack of reasoning. However, in

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases NOTE—appeals lodged by Lundbeck and others at Court of Justice (see below) 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 19 June 2013 finding four infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €146m on Lundbeck and producers of generic drugs for entering agreements to delay the entry of generic citalopram in the EEA ('pay-for-delay'). On 8 September 2016, the General Court dismissed in their entirety the actions brought by Lundbeck and the generics manufacturers—thus confirming the Commission’s findings of infringement and the €146m of combined fines imposed on Lundbeck and the generic manufacturers. This represents the first legal challenge against a Commission decision condemning pay-for-delay agreements between pharmaceutical originators and generics manufacturers—arrangements which have been common in the industry and argued

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/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—16/09/2013 Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the level of individual fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 3 October 2007 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and imposing combined fines of €183.65m on four company groups 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 16 September 2013, the General Court confirmed all the Commission's findings on substance and dismissed in their entirely the actions brought by Repsol, CEPSA and PROAS but slightly reduced the individual fines imposed on GALP and Nynäs. These cases focus, amongst other things, on the required standard of proof for evidencing an infringement in cartel cases (in particular in the context of an alleged 'single and continuous infringement'. Parties Applicants:

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 November 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment or reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 7 February 2009 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing a fine of €16.5m on Alstom and Areva T&D for the alleged participation of Areva T&D (at the time, Alstom T&D) in a market sharing cartel regarding the supply of power transformers between 1999 and 2003 ('Power transformers cartel'). The Alstom case focuses on, amongst other things, the imputability of a subsidiary's illegal behaviour to the parent company. Parties Applicants: • Alstom SA• Alstom Grid SAS (Alstom Grid)—formerly Areva T&D SA (hereafter 'Alstom T&D', 'Areva T&D' or 'Alstom/Areva T&D')Defendant: European Commission Alstom is a French multinational company active in France and globally in the electricity generation

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the level of individual fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 1 October 2008 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposing combined fines of €676m on nine company groups for their alleged participation a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel concerning the supply of paraffin waxes in the European Economic Area (EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 ('Candle waxes cartel'). On 11 July 2014, the General Court partially allowed each appeal, reducing each fine imposed and cancelling the decision in relation to the alleged infringement by Sasol Limited and Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH prior to 1 July 2002. Parties Appellants:•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 December 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment, partial annulment and/or reductions in the level of individual fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 1 October 2008 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposing combined fines of €676m on nine company groups for their alleged participation in a price-fixing and market/customer allocation cartel concerning the supply of paraffin waxes in the European Economic Area (EEA) and slack wax in Germany between 1992 and 2005 ('Candle waxes' cartel).On 12 December 2014, the General Court reduced the fine imposed on Eni while dismissing in their entirety the other actions. Parties Applicants: • Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades • Repsol Petróleo SA • Repsol YPF SA(collectively, Repsol)• Eni SpA (Eni)• H & R ChemPharm (ChemPharm)• Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse