CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 17 September 2019; it is no longer maintained.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 Irish Government to Aughinish Alumina Ltd 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 Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd finding that excise duty exemptions granted to Aughinish Alumina Ltd, for mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production, infringed the State Aid rules. In particular, the General Court held that: (i) Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd had not provided any

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals to the General Court brought against the Commission decision of 9 December 2009 making binding (upon Rambus) certain commitments in relation to potentially abusive royalties, contrary to Article 102 TFEU, for the use of certain patents for DRAM. • Appeal brought against the Commission decision of 15 January 2010 rejecting, for lack of EU interest, Hynix’s complaint regarding alleged violations by Rambus of Article 102 TFEU in connection with potentially abusive royalties for the use of certain patents for DRAM.• The case raises interesting questions regarding the circumstances in which it is appropriate

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 September 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases Case facts ARCHIVE—06/09/2013 Outline Appeals to the General Court brought by Deutsche Bahn and several subsidiaries against the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2011 authorising dawn raids at Deutsche Bahn premises on 29 March 2011 and subsequent decisions authorising additional inspections. On 6 September 2013, the General Court dismissed the applications in their entirety. The case focuses on the scope of the Commission's powers of investigation when ordering and carrying out unannounced inspections as well as the rights of companies subject to investigation. Parties Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Deutsche Bahn) and several subsidiaries Defendant: European Commission Deutsche Bahn is an international company, headquartered in Germany, that pursues activities in the national and international freight and passenger transport sector, in the logistics sector and in the sector for the provision of ancillary rail transport services.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 701/21 and C- 739/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 22 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Actions for annulment against the Commission’s decisions of 25 March 2015 and 14 August 2017 which found that an arbitration award setting an allegedly preferential tariff for electricity did not involve the granting of State aid to the aluminium producer Mytilinaios (SA.38101). Latest developments On 22 September 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeals. Parties Applicant:• Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou A.E (DEI): DEI is an electricity producer and supplier established in Greece and controlled by the Greek StateDefendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background DEI and its largest customer, Mytilinaios, have been involved in a long-running dispute regarding the electricity supply tariff intended to replace the preferential tariff enjoyed

CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the Court of Justice in Cases C- 519/15 (Trafilerie Meridionali), C- 523/15 (Westfälische Drahtindustrie), C- 510/15 (Fapricela), Case- 505/15 (SLM), T- 419/10 (Ori Martin) and T- 514/15 (HIT Groep)) 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 relevant/related cases 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 30 June 2010 (as amended by two subsequent decisions) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement and imposing fines totalling €269.87m (originally set at €518.5m) on 16 undertakings active in the supply of prestressing steel for their alleged participation in a price fixing and market-sharing cartel in the sector ('Prestressing steel cartel'). On 15 July 2015, the General Court reduced fines imposed on three applicants but confirmed the fines imposed on the remaining

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 2 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 454/16, C- 455/16, C- 456/16, C- 457/16, C- 458/16, C- 459/16, C- 460/16, and C- 461/16 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 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'). The applicants also contest a subsequent Commission letter rejecting a request to reassess the parties' claimed inability to pay. On 2 June 2016, the General Court dismissed in their entirety eight actions brought by four Celsa

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 5 October 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Referral back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 438/16, which was an appeal against the General Court’s judgment partially upholding an appeal against the Commission’s decision of 29 June 2011 (Case SA.23364) which found that a guarantee given to IFP was compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU provided that IFP’s economic activities were conduced solely on an ancillary basis and were connected with its main activity of public research. Latest developments On 5 October 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which dismissed the appeals in their entirety as unfounded, except that it has upheld IFP's ground of appeal that the obligations imposed on it in terms of financial reporting were disproportionate. The General Court noted that the obligation in Article 5(2) of the Commission’s

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 23 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further,timeline. Case facts Outline Referral back to the General Court following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C- 128/16, which was an appeal against the General Court’s judgment annulling the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2013 (Case SA.212333) which found that a Spanish scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief was unlawful State aid. Latest developments On 23 September 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it held that the tax leasing scheme for the purchase of ships involving leasing and financing through tax relief constituted unlawful State aid and the aid under the program must be recovered from the beneficiaries. Parties Appellants:• Navarra de Servicios y Technologías SA (NST)• Lico Leasing, SA (Lico) • Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA (PYMAR)Defendant:•

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 451/21 C- 454/21 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 12 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Joined Cases T- 516/18 Luxembourg v Commission and T- 525/18 Engie Global LNG Holdings and Others—actions for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 20 June 2018 finding that Luxembourg had granted unlawful State aid to Engie (formerly GDF Suez) as a result of undue tax benefits (SA.44888) Latest development On 12 May 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. In particular, the General Court held that the Commission was right to: (i) look at the economic reality of the intra-group arrangement in its analysis, rather than follow a formalistic approach; and (ii) determine that a selective advantage was conferred giving rise to State aid as a

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 January 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and related/relevant cases Case facts Outline Action for damages brought by Ziegler before the General Court, seeking actions for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the infringement finding and fine imposed on Ziegler for its participation in a cartel for the supply of international removal services in Belgium on the alleged basis that the European Union is partly responsible for the confirmed infringement, in particular, due to cover quotes requested by Commission officials for their international removals and relocations. Parties Applicants:• Ziegler SA (Ziegler)• Ziegler Relocation SA (Ziegler Relocation)Defendant: European Commission Ziegler Relocation is a subsidiary of Ziegler. Since 2003, Ziegler Relocation is the company within the Ziegler group that is responsible for carrying out removal services. Ziegler Relocation has conducted international removals, including for officials and other members of the European Commission. Background On

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 March 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 12 November 2008 (as amended by the decision of 11 February 2009) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and EEA Agreement Article 53 and imposing a record individual fine of €896m (since reduced to €880m) on Saint-Gobain (with combined fines of over €1.35b imposed on Saint-Gobain and three other group companies) for its participation in an EEA-wide car glass cartel between 1998 and 2003. This matter focuses, amongst other things, on recidivism and, in particular, on whether large gaps in time between infringements preclude the Commission relying on previous infringements as grounds for applying an uplift in its fine calculation. Parties Applicants:•

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 12/18 P and C- 465/20 P ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 15 July 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 August 2016 finding that the Republic of Ireland had granted Apple illegal State aid as a result of selective tax treatment (Case SA.38373). Outcome On 15 July 2020, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeals because the European Commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. Parties Appellants:• Ireland.• Apple Sales International (ASI) and Apple Operations Europe (AOE). ASI and AOE are two Irish incorporated companies that are fully-owned by the Apple group, ultimately controlled by the US parent, Apple Inc (Apple).