The tables below lists completed competition General Court appeal cases relating to the EU Merger Regulation. For ongoing General Court appeal cases see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For details of appeals before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. 2026 Case Decision being appealed/issues Developments Case T- 1119/23 Lagardère v Commission Appeal of the Commission’s request for information in relation to its investigation in Vivendi/Lagardère (Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EMUR) (M.11184)See Application •Judgment given—03/06/2026; appeal dismissed• Hearing held—14/05/2025• Order made—13/09/2024; application for interim measures dismissed• Order made—13/06/2024; no need to rule on the application for interim measures• Order made—19/01/2024; application for interim measures dismissed• Lodged—27/11/2023Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 569/24 and C- 861/26 P Case T- 1097/23 Vivendi v Commission Appeal of the Commission’s request for information in relation to its investigation in Vivendi/Lagardère (Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EMUR) (M.11184)See Application • Judgment given—03/2026; appeal dismissed• Hearing held—14/05/2025• Order made—13/06/2024; application for interim measures upheld• Order made—19/01/2024; application for interim measures dismissed• Lodged—23/11/2023Appeals lodged

This document tracks and summarises all appeals before the General Court relating to the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). For ongoing European Commission FSR investigations, see Foreign Subsidies Regulation—ongoing cases tracker. For details of all completed Commission preliminary investigations, see further: FSR preliminary investigations—closed cases tracker. For details of all completed Commission in-depth investigations,

The below tracks completed General Court appeal cases involving State aid (Articles 107 to 109 TFEU) since 1 June 2015. For ongoing General Court appeal cases, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For details of ongoing appeal cases before the Court of Justice involving State aid, see Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker 2026 Case Issues Developments Case T- 688/25 Albos-Energy v Commission Action against the Commission’s failure to act in relation to a complaint lodged on 30 April 2024, alleging that the Commission unlawfully failed to examine and decide on possible unlawful State aid in breach of its obligations under Article 108 TFEU and Regulation (EU) 2015/1589See Application • Order made—06/08/2026; action dismissed as inadmissible• Lodged—07/10/2025 Case T- 311/24 Úsovsko Eko v Commission Action against the Commission’s decisions in State aid Cases• SA.50787—Aid for restructuring of orchards• SA.50837—Aid for the construction of drip irrigation in orchards, hop fields, vineyards and nurseriesSee Application • Judgment given—15/07/2026; action dismissed• Hearing held—17/11/2025 • Lodged—14/06/2024 Case T- 310/24 Úsovsko Agro v Commission Action against the Commission’s

The below tracks live General Court appeal cases involving State aid (Articles 107 to 109 TFEU). For completed cases, see General Court State aid appeals—closed cases tracker. For details of recent State aid decisions by the Commission, see EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker, for details of appeal cases before the Court of Justice involving State aid, see Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker and for details of national reference cases before the Court of Justice involving State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals relating to State aid decisions Case Decision being appealed Latest development Case T- 59/25 Tartu Agro v Commission Action against the Commission’s decision in SA.39182—Alleged unlawful State aid to AS Tartu AgroSee Application • Hearing held—17/09/2026• Order made—14/05/2025; application for interim measures dismissed• Lodged—24/01/2025 Case T- 148/25 Ryanair v Commission Action against the Commission’s decision in SA.43260 concerning measures implemented by Germany in favour of Flughafen Frankfurt Hahn GmbH and Ryanair DAC See Application • Hearing held—10/09/2026• Lodged—05/03/2025 Case T- 533/26 Spielkisten v Commission Action

The EU General Court annulled the Commission's implementing decision determining Meta and Tik Tok's DSA supervisory fee, holding that the methodology for calculating Average Monthly Active Recipients (AMAR) must be established through delegated acts under Article 43(4) DSA, not implementing acts. Meta and Tik Tok had challenged the Commission's decision which determined supervisory fees for Tik Tok, Facebook and Instagram using a common AMAR calculation methodology that relied on third-party operators and was annexed to implementing acts rather than included in the delegated regulation. The Court reasoned that since AMAR calculation is essential to fee determination, Article 43(4) DSA required its detailed methodology to be established via delegated act, and maintained the decision's effects for 12 months to allow the Commission to remedy through proper delegated legislation.

The table below lists competition appeal cases (and other competition actions) currently live before the General Court relating to Article 101 TFEU, Article 102 TFEU and the EU Merger Regulation (ie actions for annulment of Commission decisions and other actions lodged). NOTE—completed appeals are moved from this document to the case trackers for closed appeals within seven days of the final decision. For completed General Court appeals see General Court Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker, General Court Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker and General Court EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker. For appeals to the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Note—this tracker does not track State aid. For State aid appeals, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice State aid appeal—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals relating to Article 101 TFEU Case Decision being appealed/issues Latest development Case T- 590/26 Krikorian and Barreau de Provence and de la Méditerranée - Eutopia v Commission To be confirmed • Lodged—02/09/2026 Case T- 529/26 Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate & Investment

The General Court of the Court of Justice of the EU has given its judgment in Case T-561/21 HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission. The General Court confirms the Commission’s amended decision against HSBC and upholds the revised fine of EUR31 739 000. The amended decision was issued by the Commission in June 2021 and revised its earlier decision, issued in December 2016, which found that Crédit Agricole, HSBC and JPMorgan Chase had participated in a single and continuous infringement which restricted and/or distorted competition in the euro interest rate derivatives sector.

EU Law analysis: In its judgment of 19 November 2025 in Case T-367/23, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Amazon EU Sàrl (Amazon) against its classification by the European Commission (Commission) as a so-called ‘Very Large Online Platform’ (VLOP) under Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (EU Digital Services Act or EU DSA). Notably, Amazon does not call into question the correctness of the figure of 45 million monthly active users within the EU to qualify as a VLOP. The meeting of this threshold is out of dispute. Rather, Amazon takes the position that Article 33(1) DSA is unlawful in so far as that provision makes certain marketplaces subject to the obligations laid down in Articles 34 to 43 DSA. In particular, Amazon puts forward an infringement of the freedom to conduct its business, its right to property, the principle of equal treatment, the freedom of expression and of information and the protection of confidential information. All these rights are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). The General Court considered all these rights on an individual basis, confirmed for most of them an interference, but at the same time emphasized that none of these rights is of absolute character. The court therefore engaged in analysing whether the specific interference could be justified. Ultimately, the judges reached the conclusion that in the case of Amazon the obligations imposed by the EU DSA are within proportion and therefore justifiable. Written by Dr Nils Rauer MJI, partner, Global Co-Lead Artificial Intelligence & head of German Intellectual Property at Pinsent Masons.

The EU General Court has issued three orders in response to 16 actions brought in March 2025 challenging the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/3019 (UWWTD). The actions were filed by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and 15 pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies and associations contesting the Directive’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regime. The actions were lodged on 7 March 2025. EFPIA lodged its own action, while the lead case among the related proceedings is Accord Healthcare France v Parliament and Council (C/2025/2672, Case T-156/25). The applicants challenge the Directive’s allocation of principal financial responsibility to the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors for quaternary wastewater treatment, including the removal of micropollutants, arguing that this infringes the EU law principles of polluter pays principle, proportionality and non-discrimination.

In Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB (2022 ex-ante contributions) Case T-395/22, the General Court of the EU has found that the calculation of Hypo Vorarlberg Bank’s 2022 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) is unlawful. The Single Resolution Board (SRB) exceeded, as the General Court found in Dexia v SRB (2022 ex-ante contributions) Case T-411/22, an annual upper limit that it should have observed and, in addition, relied on unlawful provisions of law.

The General Court of the European Union has found that the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) is unlawful. In case T-411/22, Dexia v SRB (2022 ex-ante contributions) the Court said the Single Resolution Board (SRB) exceeded an annual upper limit imposed by the applicable rules.

The General Court of the EU has upheld the European Commission’s finding that Credit Suisse participated in an anticompetitive agreement in the G10 FOREX spot-trading sector but has reduced the fine imposed from €83.2m to €28.9m. The judgment in Case T-84/22, follows an action brought by UBS Group AG, UBS AG and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd, successors in law to Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse AG, seeking annulment or reduction of the Commission’s 2021 decision. The Commission had found that traders from five banks—Credit Suisse, Barclays, HSBC, RBS and UBS—exchanged sensitive information in a professional online chatroom called ‘Sterling Lads’ between 2011 and 2012, enabling informed trading decisions and distorting competition in the sector.