CASE HUB (appeals lodged at General Court in Case T- 361/17 (Eco-Bat), Case T- 240/17 (Campine) and Case T- 222/17 (Recylex)) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 8 February 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a price fixing cartel in the market for the recycling of car batteries (AT.40018). Latest development On 8 February 2017, the Commission issued its infringement decision. The fines imposed on the four undertakings were: • Johnson Controls–€0 after being awarded immunity (avoiding a fine of €38,481,300) • Eco-Bat Technologies–€32,712,000, including a reduction of 50% under the Leniency Notice for cooperating with the Commission’s investigation• Recylex–€26,739,000, including a reduction of 30% under the Leniency Notice for cooperating with the Commission’s investigation • Campine–€8,158,000, including a reduction of 5% to reflect its more minor role in the cartel compared to the other undertakings. The Commission has noted that it rejected Campine’s application for leniency for a failure to disclose its participation in the cartel.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into two cartels for the supply of car closure systems (door modules, window regulators and latching systems (latches and strikers)) to European car manufactures (the Daimler Group and the BMW Group) in the EEA (AT.40299). The cartels involved the coordination of pricing behaviour and the exchange of confidential information. Latest development On 29 September 2020, the Commission issued its infringement decision after two car part suppliers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in cartels concerning the supply of car closure systems to European car manufactures (the Daimler Group and the BMW Group) in the EEA. Fines totalling €18m were imposed. Magna also participated in the cartels but received full immunity under the Commission’s leniency programme. Parties • Brose: Brose is German based company. It manufactures mechatronic systems and electric drives for vehicle body and

Financial Services analysis: The Supreme Court has held in three conjoined appeals that claims in the tort of bribery and in equity for dishonest assistance in a breach of fiduciary duty require the recipient of the payment to owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty to the claimant, and that car dealers do not owe their customers such duties when helping to arrange motor finance. The court also held that the circumstances in one case (Johnson) gave rise to an unfair relationship between the lender and the claimant under sections 140A-140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). This judgment clarifies the law relating to tortious and equitable claims for bribery, will streamline the thousands of motor finance commission cases before the courts and is also likely to have significant repercussions for many other industries where payment of commission is widespread. Written by Christopher Adams, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 8 July 2021; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 87/22 See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into the restriction of competition on the development of technology to clean the emissions of diesel passenger cars (ie nitrogen oxide cleaning) (Case AT.40178). Latest development On 8 July 2021, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the three companies settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the cartel. Total fines totalling €875m were imposed.Total fines imposed on each company were:• Volkswagen—€502.362 (including a reduction of 45% for leniency and a reduction of 10% for settling)• BMW—€372.827m (including a reduction of 10% for settling)• Daimler—no fine (as a result of being awarded immunity). Parties • Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW): a German car manufacturer based in Munich • Daimler AG (Daimler): a German car manufacturer based in Stuttgart, and • Volkswagen AG (Volkswagen): a German car manufacturer based in Wolfsburg. The investigation relates

MLex has reported that car equipment manufacturing company Continental Automotive Romania has been fined €2,000 by the Romanian Data Protection Authority (DPA) for violating Articles 24 and 32 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). During the investigation, the DPA found that the company had around 135 unapproved video surveillance cameras on its production site. The DPA said that the company failed to establish adequate technical and organisational measures to evaluate the surveillance system's effectiveness and prevent unauthorised access to personal data.

Law360, London: The average price of car insurance in the UK has dropped by £60 compared with 2024, but high claims costs continue to challenge insurance companies, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said on 13 August 2025.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 June 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the aftermarket segment for the supply of spare car lighting system parts for passenger and commercial vehicles (AT.40013). The cartel involved coordinating prices and other trading conditions. Latest development On 21 June 2017, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the three manufacturers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the cartel. Fines totalling €26.7m were imposed. Fines imposed on each manufacturer were: • Valeo–€0 (as a result of being granted immunity, avoiding a fine of over €30.5m) • Automotive Lighting–€16,347,000 (including a 30% reduction for leniency and a 10%

Many employers provide company cars for certain employees as part of their remuneration package, or give them a car or fuel allowance. For sample contract wording, see Precedent: Clauses—car or car allowance. Cars and car allowances not wages A company car is not wages for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996)—a benefit in kind is not wages unless it is vouchers, stamps or a document which can be expressed in monetary terms and is exchangeable for money, goods or services. This means that a company car does not count towards the value of a week's pay (see Practice Note: Calculating a week’s pay) nor is it protected by the provisions relating to unlawful deductions from wages (see Practice Note: Deductions from wages). A car allowance is not 'wages' for the purposes of ERA 1996 if it merely refunds an employee for travel expenses they have incurred in their employment. However, an allowance for the private use of a car will count as 'wages'. An employer cannot count the value of a benefit in kind

A car salesman has been sentenced for falsely claiming ill health had prevented him from maintaining company records when he had disposed of them. John Brian Capper has received an 18-month community order, comprising of 250 hours of unpaid work. His company, Ikonic Solutions Limited, owed alleged tax liabilities of over £654,000. The Insolvency Service commenced criminal proceedings when the Official Receiver discovered that business transactions were being paid into Capper’s personal bank account and that he received an 8-year director disqualification in 2017. Capper pleaded guilty to failing to deliver up books and records and failing to preserve the company’s accounting records at Bradford Magistrates' Court.

Two car-finance lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, have been granted permission from the Supreme Court to appeal a landmark ruling that found that brokers (car dealers) receiving commission from lenders without customers' informed consent was unlawful. The review of the ruling will take place in the first quarter of 2025, the Court said.

The chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group said today that the current uncertainty in Britain's car-finance sector is creating an ‘investability problem’. Lloyds is the biggest provider of car finance in the UK.

means the aggregate of [value] tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent of Greenhouse Gas emissions permitted within the period of [YEAR to YEAR].