CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 697/19, C- 698/19, C- 699/19 and C- 700/19 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 July 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed in the Commission's decision of 21 October 2015 finding infringements and imposing fines on eight companies in relation to their alleged participation in a cartel in the market for optical disk drives (Case AT.39639). Latest developments On 12 July 2019, the General Court dismissed in their entirety the actions brought by the optical disk drive suppliers—thereby confirming the Commission’s findings of infringement and the €116m of combined fines imposed. Parties Applicants:• Koninklijke Philips N.V (Philips)• Lite-On IT Corporation (Lite-On)• Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation (Philips-Lite-On) (formerly Philips-BenQ)• Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. (together, Hitachi-LG)•

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 September 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/similar cases NOTE—appeals lodged by LG, Samsung, Philips and Panasonic at Court of Justice in Cases C- 588/15, C- 615/15, C- 622/15 and C- 608/15 Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment or a substantial reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 5 December 2012 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €1.475bn on seven undertakings active in the supply of cathode ray tubes and for their alleged participation in cartels in the sector ('TV and computer monitor tubes cartels'). On 9 September 2015, the General Court reduced the fines imposed on Panasonic and Toshiba but confirmed the fines imposed on the other applicants. This matter is notable in that it remains the largest combined fine ever imposed

CASE HUB Archived—this case reflects the position of the judgement of 13 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—Appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 152/19 P and C- 165/19 P See further: timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Two separate but related appeals to the General Court of the European Commission’s decision to fine Slovak Telekom and its parent company Deutsche Telekom a total of €69.9m on 15/10/2014 for abuse of a dominant position for broadband services in Slovakia. The abusive behaviour involved a refusal to supply and a margin squeeze (Case AT.39253). Outcome On 13 December 2018, the General Court issued its judgments, in which it partially annulled the Commission’s decision in relation to a finding of a breach of Article 102 TFEU. The General Court has largely upheld the Commission’s decision that Slovak Telekom and its parent company Deutsche Telecom had infringed Article 102 TFEU. However, the General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 297/22 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment 23 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Two separate actions seeking economic damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2013 to prohibit the United Parcel Services/TNT Express merger (Case M.6570). Latest developments On 23 February 2022, the General Court issued its judgments in which it dismissed the damages actions in their entirety. In relation to Case T- 834/17, the General Court held (amongst other things) that UPS failed to show that an infringement of its procedural rights in the merger review constituted the determining cause of the types of damages alleged. Furthermore, UPS could not show that the Commission directly caused it to pay out a break-fee to TNT, which UPS itself had negotiated. In relation

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged at the Court of Justice in Case C- 122/16 British Airways v Commission. Actions for damages have also been lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 80/21, T- 291/21, T- 292/21, T- 313/21 and T- 310/21 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 16 December 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases NOTE–appeal lodged by British Airways at Court of Justice in Case C- 122/16 Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment or substantial reduction in the levels of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 9 November 2010 finding a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 8 Agreement between the European Community and Swiss Confederation on Air transport and imposing fines totalling €799.45m on 11 undertakings active in the supply of international air cargo services for their alleged participation in global cartel for airfreight services ('Air cargo

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 February 2014 ; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking partial annulment and reduction in the level of fine imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 8 December 2010 (issued to six recipients) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposing combined fines of €648.9m on five companies for their alleged participation in an liquid crystal display panels (LCD panels) cartel between October 2001 and February 2006. On 27 February 2014, the General Court rejected most of the arguments put forward and, in so doing, upheld the substance of the Commission’s decision. However, the General Court reduced slightly the fines imposed on each of the applicants. This case focuses on Commission's approach to calculating fines, in particular in relation to the use of sales of finished products

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 December 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Referral back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgments in Cases C-553/12 P Commission v DEI and C-554/12 P Commission v DEI European—judgments setting aside the General Court's judgments which annulled the Commission decision of 5 March 2008 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 Greek public utility company, Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits, and (2) the Commission decision of 4 August 2009 which had established specific measures to remedy the anticompetitive effects of the infringement identified in the decision of 5 March 2008 (Case COMP/B-1/38.700—Greek Lignite). Having rejected the General Court’s substantive findings, the Court of Justice required the General Court to rule

NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 582/18, C- 587/18, C- 589/18, C- 590/18, C- 591/18, C- 591/18, C- 593/18, C- 594/18, C- 596/18, C- 599/18, C- 601/18, C- 606/18, C- 607/18 and C- 611/18 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary, and relevant/similar cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment (in whole or in part) and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission's decision of 2 April 2014 in which the Commission imposed fines totalling €301.6m on producers of high-voltage power cables for their participation in a worldwide market-sharing and customer-allocating cartel (the power cables cartel).Also see Case T- 419/14 The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (power cables cartel) for a separate case hub on the General Court’s judgment against Goldman Sachs in relation to the power cables cartel. Outcome On 12 July 2018, the General Court dismissed a large

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a recent decision in the Business and Property Court, Master Marsh considered a defendant’s application for strike out of a claim and rejected it on the basis that the facts were in dispute and that the claimant might well succeed in showing at trial that its claim was governed by French and not English law, and that it therefore had prospects of success. The decision as regards where damage was sustained was a fact sensitive one which ought to be made at trial and not on a strike out application. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

HHJ Pelling KC, Judge in Charge of the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC), has issued a practice note in relation to claims with a financial value of less than £500,000 (or the foreign currency equivalent, exclusive of interest and costs) that are issued initially in the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC). It is understood that practitioners continue to try and issue such claims in the LCCC even where section B.7(b) of the Circuit Commercial Court Guide provide that the current practice of the LCCC is to transfer these claims to an appropriate County Court (unless the relevant exceptions in CPR 30.3(2) apply).

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeal brought by The Dow Chemical Company and its subsidiaries against the General Court judgment largely upholding the Commission decision finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €64.58m jointly and severally on Dow Chemical and three of its subsidiaries for their alleged participation in a European-wide cartel for the supply of butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene-rubber (referred hereafter as BR and ESBR respectively or collectively as 'synthetic rubber') between 2 September 1996 and 28 November 2002. This case focuses on, amongst other things, the imputability of a subsidiary's illegal behaviour to the parent company. Parties Appellants: • The Dow Chemical Company (Dow Chemical)• Dow Deutschland Inc (Dow Deutschland)• Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH (Anlagengesellschaft) • Dow Europe GmbH (Dow Europe) (collectively, Dow)Other Party:European Commission The Dow group is an international company headquartered in the United States (US). Dow Chemical is the ultimate parent

A scheme which, in broad terms, enables a trader to account for output tax and deduct input tax by reference to the time when payments are received or made.