White & Case (Brussels)

Katarzyna Czapracka

White & Case (Brussels)

Katarzyna Czapracka is a partner with White & Case based in the Brussels office. She advises clients on the full range of competition law issues, including complex merger control and antitrust matters. She represents clients in Phase I and Phase II merger cases before the European Commission and the Polish competition authority. She has a broad experience advising on multijurisdictional considerations, as well as remedies in merger cases. Katarzyna Czapracka also defends clients in conduct matters and advises on compliance with antitrust rules. Her experience includes handling EU and national investigations and litigation before the EU and national courts. Based in Brussels and Warsaw, her practice focuses on EU and cross-border projects, but she is also adept in domestic Polish matters. Katarzyna has also worked in the firm’s offices in New York and Washington, DC, where her practice focused on international and US antitrust matters. She advises clients on complex cases of abuse of dominance, involving price-based conduct (rebates), refusal to supply/license and tying/bundling practices. She has also been involved in cartel investigations and in pleading related appeals before the EU Courts. She has extensive experience in handling cases involving the intersection of IP and competition law, including technology transfer/IP licensing agreements. She received a doctorate (JSD) from Columbia Law School in 2007, where her thesis focused on the intersection between IP and competition law.


Linked authors

White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Washington)
White & Case (Boston)
White & Case (Riyadh)
White & Case (New York)


Katarzyna Capraczka (White & Case)
Katarzyna Czapracka 21 June 2018 Warsaw


6308 Bulletin

Katarzyna Czapracka, Tilman Kuhn, Cornelius Börner, Mark Powell The EU Court of Justice holds that the Commission needs to show based on a "cogent and consistent body of evidence" that a merger will result in a significant impediment to effective competition before it blocks the transaction or imposes remedies (Telefónica / Hutchison 3G)


The EU Court of Justice in the CK Telecoms ruling has addressed key questions of EU merger control, including the standard of proof for the European Commission to challenge a merger, the assessment of mergers below the dominance threshold ("gap cases"), the concepts of "closeness of (...)

Katarzyna Czapracka, Marika Harjula, Tilman Kuhn, Peter Citron The EU Commission adopts new Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines and publishes the final version of the R&D and Specialisation Block Exemption Regulations


The EU Commission (EC) has published its final revised Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines and adopted new R&D and Specialisation Block Exemption Regulations (HBERs). The EC’s aim is to provide more guidance for competitors wishing to cooperate in areas such as R&D and production, but (...)

Katarzyna Czapracka, Jérémie Jourdan, Assimakis Komninos, Tilman Kuhn, Nina Frie The EU Court of Justice confirms that the national authorities can review ex post below-threshold mergers under abuse of dominance rules (Towercast)


The long-awaited European Court of Justice’s judgment in Towercast confirmed that national competition authorities (and national courts) can apply abuse of dominance rules to mergers that did not trigger EU and national merger control thresholds, and were not referred to the European (...)

Katarzyna Czapracka, Assimakis Komninos, Niccolò Piga The EU Court of Justice confirms that an effects-based approach applies to exclusive dealing and clarifies the narrow circumstances under which the conduct of distributors can engage the liability of a dominant company (Unilever Italia)


On 19 January 2023, the EU Court of Justice, answering questions from the Italian Council of State, confirmed that the Intel effects-based approach applies also to exclusive dealing practices and held that competition authorities must duly examine economic evidence produced by dominant (...)

Jérémie Jourdan, Katarzyna Czapracka, James Killick, Assimakis Komninos, Peter Citron The EU Court of Justice clarifies the scope of the essential facilities doctrine in a case involving the Lithuanian national railway (Lietuvos geležinkeliai)


On 12 January 2023, the EU Court of Justice upheld the EU General Court’s judgment imposing a fine on Lithuanian Railways for dismantling a section of railway track. While reaffirming its essential facility case law (Bronner), the Court confirmed that the Bronner case law did not apply to the (...)

Jérémie Jourdan, Assimakis Komninos, Tilman Kuhn, Strati Sakellariou-Witt, Jérémie Marthan, Katarzyna Czapracka, Nina Frie The EU Court of Justice AG Kokott proposes that non-reportable transactions could be caught by abuse of dominance rules (Towercast)


Advocate General Juliane Kokott has proposed that the EU Court of Justice should find that competition authorities have the power to apply Article 102 TFEU to corporate transactions that are not reportable, and test under that provision whether the transaction as such constitutes an abuse of a (...)

Jérémie Jourdan, Katarzyna Czapracka, Axel P. Schulz, Tilman Kuhn, Peter Citron The EU General Court confirms the Commission’s decision fining an audio visual company €28M for gun jumping in warehousing scheme (Canon / Toshiba)


On 18 May 2022, the EU General Court (GC) upheld the European Commission’s (EC) € 28 million fine imposed on Canon for gun-jumping in the context of a (somewhat unique) so-called warehousing structure. The judgment confirms that structures such as the one at issue are not allowed under EU law (...)

Strati Sakellariou-Witt, Axel P. Schulz, Katarzyna Czapracka, Tilman Kuhn, Martina Castrén The EU General Court dismisses a €1.7B claim for damages brought by a courier delivery services company in which it sought compensation for losses resulting from the Commission’s decision to block a merger with its rival (UPS / TNT)


On 23 February 2022, the EU’s General Court (GC) dismissed a €1.7 billion claim for damages brought by United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) against the European Commission (EC). UPS sought compensation for the losses resulting from the EC’s decision to block UPS’ merger with TNT NV (TNT). The GC, (...)

Jérémie Jourdan, Tilman Kuhn, Thilo-Maximilian Wienke, Katarzyna Czapracka The EU Commissioner for Competition Vestager announces broader use of EUMR Article 22 to catch potential "killer acquisitions" and simplified filing procedure for most other mergers


This article has been nominated for the 2021 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. A recent speech by the European Commission’s (the Commission) Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager (the Commissioner), on the 30th anniversary of (...)

Daniel Hoppe-Jänisch, James Killick, Katarzyna Czapracka The EU Court of Justice sets out specific requirements with which an SEP holder needs to comply to be able to seek an injunction without abusing its dominant position (Huawei / ZTE)


Standards lie at the heart of the digital economy – without standards, we would not have smartphones, tablets and other key parts of modern life. Europe’s highest court recently delivered a judgment in Huawei v. ZTE explaining when EU competition law will prevent holders of patents that are (...)

James Killick, Katarzyna Czapracka The Advocate General Wathelet states that before seeking an injunction, a standard-essential patent holder must inform an infringer that the latter needs a license (Huawei / ZTE)


Summary The Advocate General’s advisory Opinion in the Huawei v. ZTE FRAND Case (C-170/13) would, if followed by the full European Court of Justice (ECJ), usher in a significant shift in the playing field in German litigation on Standard essential patents (SEPs). Germany has been known as a (...)

James Killick, Katarzyna Czapracka Intellectual Property & Antitrust: a synthesis of EU and national case law


The interaction between competition rules and intellectual property ("IP") rights has long been among the most interesting, controversial and widely discussed issues in competition law. At a first glance, the objectives of IP law and competition rules might seem to be at odds with each other. On the one hand, competition rules prohibit conduct that restricts competition and thereby leads to lower output and higher prices. On the other, IP law creates exclusive rights that limit access to information, technologies and other intangible assets.

1064 Review

Katarzyna Czapracka, Martin d’Halluin, Oliver Latham Start-ups, European champions and unicorns for a digital sovereignty: What role for competition policy? (New Frontiers of Antitrust, 3 Nov. 2020)


Contents: Reining in digital unicorns: Is Europe setting the rules for the world?, Dr Katarzyna Czapracka, Partner, White & Case, Brussels and Warsaw A few thoughts on privacy and competition, Martin d’Halluin, Senior Vice President, Global Competition Law & Policy Counsel, News (...)


Total visits

Number of readings per contribution

Number of contributions

Author's ranking
In number of contributions
In number of visits
In average number of visits
Send a message