CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Relevant/related cases Joined Cases C-247/11 P Areva v Commission and C-253/11 P Alstom and Others v Commission (Switchgear cartel appeal case hub)Joined Cases C‑628/10 P and C‑14/11 P Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission and Commission v Alliance One

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Opinion and Judgment Joined Cases C- 247/11 P Areva v Commission and C- 253/11 P Alstom and Others v Commission, opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 19 September 2013 Joined Cases C- 247/11 P Areva v Commission and C- 253/11 P Alstom and Others v Commission, judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 April 2014 Relevant/related cases Joined Cases C‑628/10 P and C‑14/11 P Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission and Commission v Alliance One International and Others(insofar as it relates to parental liability)Case

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from Portugal seeking clarification as to whether (amongst other things) Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU preclude business records arising from e-mail communication between managers and employees of undertakings from being sized in the course of an investigation under Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 20 June 2024, Advocate General Medina issued his opinion proposing that Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude national legislation pursuant to which, in the course of an inspection at the premises of an undertaking, carried out as part of an investigation into an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, the national competition authority may search for and seize emails whose content relates to the subject matter of the inspection without having prior judicial authorisation, provided that a strict legal framework for that authority's powers has been laid down together with adequate

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 June 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, relevant/related cases and commentary Case facts Outline Appeal of the General Court judgment in Case T- 216/15 upholding an appeal by Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa of the Commission decision (SA.23008) which ruled that SZP (a State-owned health insurance company) had not been granted illegal State aid in the form of a capital injections by Slovakia. Latest developments On 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld Slovakia’s and the Commission’s appeal—thereby setting aside the General Court’s 2018 judgment. Parties Appellant:• Slovakia• European Commission (the Commission)Respondent:• Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (DZP) Background Background In 1994, Slovakia’s health insurance system changed from a unitary system, with just one State-owned health insurance company, to a pluralistic model in which public and private bodies coexist.All health insurance bodies (both public and

CASE HUB (date of judgment—24/06/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 June 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline Appeals brought by Del Monte against the judgment of the General Court upholding, as regards the substance, the Commission decision of 15 October 2008 finding an infringement and imposing a fine of €14.7m on Del Monte (jointly and severally with Weichert) for its alleged participation in a cartel for the supply of fresh bananas to the northern European region ('Bananas cartel'). The General Court judgment did, however, reduce Del Monte's individual fine on account of alleged errors in the fining calculation and for providing insufficient credit for Weichert's cooperation during the administrative procedure. This reduction in Del Monte/Weichert's individual fine is the subject of the Commission's own appeal to the Court of Justice. On 24 June 2015, the Court of Justice dismissed

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23/11/2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline National references from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia District Court, Bulgaria) to the Court of Justice requesting preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU seeking clarification (amongst other things and insofar as it relates to competition law) regarding the compatibility of Article 101 TFEU (read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU) with Bulgarian national rules which provide that legal representatives fees be subject to a minimum tariff or scale. Outcome On 23 November 2017, the Court of Justice issued its ruling in which it found, amongst other things, that Article 101 TFEU (read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU) must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislation in question is capable of restricting competition in the internal market. Parties • Frontex International (Frontex)• Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD (Chez Elektro)• Yordan Kotsev• Emil Yanakiev• Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia District Court, Bulgaria) Market Legal

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 December 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court judgments in Cases T- 282/16 and T- 283/16 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission decision in State aid Case SA.38869—Compensation of Poczta Polska for the net cost of USO 2013-2015. Latest developments On 17 December 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Parties Appellants:• Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o (Inpost), and• Inpost S.A (Impost)Respondent:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On 10 June 2014, Poland notified a mechanism for compensating Poczta Polska S.A (PP) for the delivery of the universal service obligation (USO) in the entire Polish territory for the period 2013-2026 to the Commission. The compensation was set up by establishing a fund into which all postal service provides in Poland (including PP) would contribute.

CASE HUB (date of judgment—26/10/2017) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived reflects the position at the date of the decision of 26 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought by Celsa Group companies against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission's decision of 30 June 2010 (as amended by two subsequent decisions) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €54.4m on four companies (all units of the Celsa Group) for their alleged participation in a price fixing and market-sharing cartel in the prestressing steel sector ('Prestressing steel cartel').  Outcome On 26 October 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety, thus confirming the judgment of the General Court and the fines imposed by the Commission on the four Celsa Group companies implicated in the cartel activityThese appeals focused, amongst other things, on issues regarding addressees' 'inability to pay' (with this investigation being particularly

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position of the date of the judgment on 5 December 2023; it is no longer maintained See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 516/18 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018 finding that Luxembourg has granted unlawful State aid to Engie (formerly GDF Suez) as a result of undue tax benefits (SA.44888). Latest developments On 5 December 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal and annulled the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the: (i) General Court erred upholding the Commission’s finding as to the existence of such a link of conditionality between those two tax treatments; (ii) General Court erred in holding that the Commission was not required to take into account the administrative practice of the Luxembourg tax authorities relating

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 673/15, in which it had ordered the EU to pay damages of €654,523 to Guardian Europe owing to excessive length of previous judicial proceedings before the General Court (Case T- 82/08) in an appeal against the Commission’s flat glass cartel decision (AT.39165). Latest development On 5 September 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld EU’s appeal, but dismissed Guardian Europe’s appeal, thereby meaning Guardian Europe was stripped of the damages awarded by the General Court. Parties Appellants: • Guardian Europe Sàrl (Guardian Europe)Other party:• European UnionGuardian Europe Sàrl (Guardian Europe) is part of the Guardian Group which is active in the production of flat glass and automotive glass. Guardian Industries is the ultimate parent company

CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/09/2016) 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 14 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought by Trafilerie Meridionali and SLM/Ori Martin against judgments of the General Court upholding, for the most part (and on substance), the Commission decision of 30 June 2010 (as amended) finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines on Trafilerie Meridionali and SLM/Ori Martin (revised downwards by the General Court) for their alleged participation in a price fixing and market-sharing cartel in the steel sector ('Prestressing steel cartel'). On 14 September 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals in their entirety and thus confirmed the judgments of the General Court and the revised fines set by those judgments. These appeals focus, amongst other things, on issues regarding addressees' 'inability to pay' (with this investigation being particularly

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment of 9 June 2021 upholding an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2018 finding that the non-charging of a deposit on certain drinks packaging sold by German border shops to customers resident in Denmark does not constitute State aid (SA.44865). Latest developments On 14 September 2023, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld IGG’s appeal finding (amongst other things) that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission, in the decision at issue, had carried out an insufficient and incomplete examination of the non-imposition of fines on the border shops, in that it did not verify whether the difficulties of interpretation which the competent German regional authorities had encountered were temporary and were part of a process of gradual clarification