CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 8 December 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline National references from two Spanish regional courts (the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza and Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot) 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) as to the compatibility with Article 101 TFEU (read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU) of national rules which provide that legal representatives'’ remuneration be subject to a minimum tariff or scale and which cannot, even in exceptional circumstances, be derogated from by national courts. On 8 December 2016, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 101 TFEU (read in conjunction with Article 4(3)TEU) must be interpreted as not precluding the national legislation in question. Parties Applicants • Eurosaneamientos SL (Eurosaneamientos) • Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de reciclado López Soriano (Entidad)• UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA (UTE)•

CASE HUB (date of judgment—14/09/2017) See further: timeline and related/similar cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 September 2017; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 5 December 2012 finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53(1) EEA and imposing fines on LG and Philips (including a joint and several fine of €391.9m for the activities of their joint venture, LPD) for their participation in two distinct cartels for the supply of cathode ray tubes ('TV and computer monitor tubes cartels'). On 14 September 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed in their entirety the appeals brought by LG and Philips (ie in particular, confirming the General Court was correct to reject the argument that the Commission infringed the appellants’ rights of defence by failing to send the Statement of Objections to LPD).This matter

CASE HUB See further, timeline., Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 227/21 dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 19 April 2021 to accept a referral request under Article 22 EUMR in relation to the acquisition by Illumina, Inc. of GRAIL, Inc. (M.10188). Outcome On 21 March 2024, Advocate General Emilious issued his opinion proposing that the Court of Justice should set aside the General Court’s judgment and annul the Commission’s decision to accept requests by France and five other Member States for referral, under Article 22 EUMR, of Illumina, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of GRAIL, Inc. In particular, Advocate General takes the view that Member States may not request the Commission to examine a concentration which does not have a Community dimension, even where they have no competence to review such a concentration under national law Parties Applicants:• Illumina, Inc. (Illumina)• GRAIL, In (GRAIL)• Defendant: European Commission (the Commission) Background Background On

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 February 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal against the General Court’s judgment of 23 September 2020 which dismissed an action of annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning Spanish aid for the acquisition of ships (SA.21233). Latest developments On 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice issued its decision in which it partially annulled the Commission’s decision. In particular, the Court of Justice (held amongst other things) that the General Court's analysis was based on the incorrect premise that only the investors, and not the economic interest groups (EIGs), could be regarded as the beneficiaries of the advantages arising from the tax measures at issue. Consequently, the General Court incorrectly examined the issue of selectivity. The ECJ referred the case back to the General Court. The

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Joined Cases T- 755/15 and T- 759/15 dismissing actions for annulment of the Commission decision finding that selective tax advantages granted to Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe by Luxembourg amounted to unlawful State aid (SA.38375) Latest developments On 8 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the Commission’s decision.. In particular, the Court of Justice held (amongst other things) that the General Court was wrong to confirm the reference framework used by the Commission to apply the arm’s length principle to integrated companies in Luxembourg, in failing to take into account the specific rules implementing that principle in that Member State. The Court of Justice did not consider other grounds of appeal raised

CASE HUB (date of judgment—05/03/2015) See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 March 2015; it is no longer maintained. Outline Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 5 December 2007 as it relates to infringement findings against Versalis and Eni for their alleged participation in a EEA-wide chloroprene rubber cartel between 1993 and 2002 ('Chloroprene rubber cartel') but reducing to €106.2m the fine imposed jointly and severally on Eni and Versalis. The Commission's appeal is in respect of the reduced fines ordered by the General Court. Meanwhile, Versalis and Eni (despite having been successful at reducing the level of fines imposed by the Commission) challenge (amongst other things) the General Court's findings in relation to the joint and several liability of parent companies, the attribution of liability and the level of fine imposed (and, in particular, its calculation).On

CASE HUB—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 November 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further,timeline. Case facts Outline Joined Cases C- 105/18 to C- 113/18 UNESA and Others v Administración General del Estado—several national references from Spain seeking clarification, amongst other things, as to whether Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax (such as the one in issue) to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid. Latest developments On 7 November 2019, the Court of Justice issued its judgment. In relation to State aid aspect of the case, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact the tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity is not payable by (i) hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing a single autonomous community and (ii) by producers of electricity

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court upholding the Commission decision of 24 January 2007 as it relates to infringement findings against Siemens, Toshiba and Mitsubishi Electric for their alleged participation in a price-fixing cartel for gas insulated switchgear ('Switchgear cartel').The case focuses (amongst other things) on the approach for establishing a 'single and continuous infringement' and the Commission's fining calculations under the guidelines. Parties Appellants: • Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (Mitsubishi)• Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba)• Siemens AG (Siemens)Other party: European Commission Background The Commission imposed fines totalling €750.71m on 20 European and Japanese companies (comprising 11 group companies) for their participation in a gas insulated switchgear (GIS) cartel between 1988 and 2004. The Commission decision documented how, from at least 1998 through to 2004, the companies in

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 607/17 and T- 8/18 dismissing actions for annulment of the Commission decision of 26 July 2016 finding that a compensation scheme in favour of several airlines to be illegal and ordering all aid received to be repaid (SA.33983). Latest developments On 17 November 2022, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it upheld the Applicants’ appeals, set aside the General Court’s 2020 judgment, and annulled the Commission’s 2016 decision in so far as it concerned the Applicants. Parties Applicants:• Volotea SA (Volotea): Volotea is a Spanish based company. It provides scheduled air transportation services. Volotea offers scheduled passenger and freight service between small and medium sized cities throughout Europe.• easyJet Airline Company Ltd (easyJet): easyJet is a UK based company. It

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 26 January 2007 rejecting BVGD’s complaint against De Beers for breaches of Articles 81 and 82 EC in the rough diamond market arising from the use by De Beers of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC). BVGD argues that De Beers is attempting, through its SOC system, to extend its

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 11 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by Spira to the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 26 January 2007 rejecting Spira’s complaint against De Beers for breaches of Articles 81 and 82 EC in the rough diamond market arising from the use by De Beers of distribution agreements known as Supplier of Choice (SOC). Appeal by Spira seeking annulment of a subsequent Commission decision stating that changes in the facts which had occurred (namely the Court of First Instance judgment annulling the Commission decision in 2006 making binding commitments

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court against the Commission's decision of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production (Case SA.12186). The Commission found 80% of the amount of the tax exemptions granted by the Italian Government to Euroallumina SpA as lawful, requiring recovery of the remaining 20% of the amount of relief. Latest developments On 17 September 2019, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed in its entirety the appeals by Italy and Eurallumina finding that excise duty exemptions granted to Eurallumina SpA, for minerals oils used as fuel for alumina production, infringed the State Aid rules. In particular, the General Court held that: (i) Italy and Eurallumina SpA had not provided any evidence to show that the exemptions