Pascal Cardonnel

Can the Commission seize computer files during an inspection and subsequently examine them when it returns to its Brussels premises in order to extract the data relevant to its investigation? One of the protagonists in the electricity cable cartel, Nexans, contested the existence of such a (...)

The Court dismisses the appeals brought against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2018 České dráhy (Case T-325/16, EU:T:2018:368, and T-621/16 EU:T:2018:367).), in accordance with firmly established principles. These cases had their common origin in Commission inspections (...)

This case is the second contribution of the lift cartel to the development of EU law on liability for anti-competitive acts. In 2014, in the wake of the Commission’s 2007 decision on the lift cartel in Benelux and Germany, the Court had validated in principle the possibility of extending the (...)

In September 2018, the National Assembly had adopted an amendment introduced by the Government that inserted an article 71 bis in the draft law on the growth and transformation of enterprises ("PACTE law"). Brief history of this bill The purpose of Article 71a of the PACTE bill was to (...)

This case completes the case law on judicial review of Commission inspections. Union law does not provide for a mechanism of prior judicial authorisation of inspections. This shortcoming is not incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as it is counterbalanced by procedural rules and (...)

As a follow-up to the Damages Directive 2014/104, the Commission launched a public consultation on a draft notice to assist national courts in dealing with requests for disclosure of confidential information, in particular in the context of follow-up actions. The Notice, which has no legally (...)

The case of the Italian rebar cartel continues. In December 2002, the Commission imposed fines totalling around €85 million on eight steel companies for price-fixing agreements from 1989 to 2000. The Commission based its decision on the ECSC Treaty. However, the ECSC Treaty had expired five (...)

Can an undertaking which came second in the race for cooperation with the Commission obtain the coefficient for reduction of a fine reserved for the first if it can show that the latter did not cooperate genuinely, fully, continuously and expeditiously throughout the administrative procedure? (...)

Approximately 17 years after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, the Court of First Instance rules on a case relating to a procedure under Article 65 CA prohibiting cartels. The initial Commission decision dates back to 2002 (Decision C(2002)5087 final): eight steel undertakings had been found (...)

In 2010, the Commission investigated a complaint about Qualcomm’s practices that were alleged to be an abuse of dominance. Nearly five years later, after several requests for information, the Commission informed the company of its grievances, which were based on a violation of Article 102 (...)

The Tribunal clarifies the conditions for compliance with procedural safeguards in cartel proceedings in which some companies are sued through the ordinary channels while others choose to settle. In such a hybrid procedure, when the Commission draws up the settlement decision, the principle of (...)

When the Court of First Instance orders the annulment of a fine, the Commission is naturally required to repay the amount of the fine, together with interest to reflect the value of the money over time. What happens when, in an environment characterised by negative interest rates, the (...)

With few means and risks, it is possible to exploit differences in the price of a drug between national markets. This parallel trade is highly profitable and is vigorously defended by the companies that engage in it. Pharmaceutical companies, when they oppose it, have to be ingenious not to (...)

In 2014, as part of an investigation into possible manipulations of the reference price for ethanol, the Commission inspected the Alcogroup’s premises. For the preparation of its defence, communications between Alcogroup and its lawyers were then systematically identified by the lawyers as (...)

The concept of amicus curiae is not very popular in the Union’s courts. While Article 15(3) of Regulation 1/2003 confers on the Commission this function of "friend of the court" before national courts (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2009, X, case C-429/07, Case C-429/07, p. (...)

The story is always more or less the same: a company struggling to gain access to a foreign market complains to the local competition authority about abusive practices it considers itself a victim of by an operator in a dominant position. At the same time, it refers the matter to the (...)

This judgment is based on well-established case law on the rejection of complaints, but also contains some peripheral assessments of the relationship between public and private actions. The applicants engage in parallel trade in plant protection products in Poland and Austria. They lodged a (...)

The case law of the Court has accepted the use of general presumptions to refuse, on the basis of the rules on the right of public access to documents held by the institutions of the Union, to grant third parties access to documents in State aid, merger control and antitrust files. Admittedly, (...)

The year 2017 begins with four judgments of the Court of First Instance on the compensation of individuals for breach of the obligation to try within a reasonable time. Those judgments follow the abandonment, at the end of 2013, of the Baustahlgewebe case-law (Case C-185/95), according to (...)

This case has the particularity of concerning a decision taken under the so-called "settlement procedure" pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation 773/2004 and the Commission Notice on settlement procedures for decisions pursuant to Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation 1/2003. By this decision, the (...)

Complaints alleging infringements of EU competition law can be rejected on two types of grounds. The first, general, is the interest of the Union. According to the Automec case-law (Case T-24/90), the Commission determines this interest by making a sovereign assessment of the degree of (...)

Can the Commission, in order to establish the existence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, rely on recorded telephone conversations by a cartel participant without the knowledge of the persons concerned? The Court of First Instance answers in the affirmative, contrary to what has been (...)

In 2012, the Commission has approved the granting by the French authorities of €31 million in restructuring aid to the household appliances manufacturer FagorBrandt. Its competitor Whirlpool applied to the Court of First Instance for the annulment of that decision taken at the end of the (...)

Trioplast Wittenheim (TW) is one of the companies involved in the industrial bags cartel. In 2005, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 17.85 million on TW. In 2010, its parent company, Trioplast Industrier (TI), which had been held jointly and severally liable for TW’s conduct in an amount (...)

The Court of First Instance validated the method of calculating the fines which it had suggested to the Commission when it partially annulled the decision relating to the gas-insulated switchgear (GIS) cartel in favour of two Japanese undertakings. Mitsubishi and Toshiba were fined (...)

In June 2008, the applicant was ordered jointly and severally with its subsidiary to pay a fine of EUR 9,9 million for its participation in the sodium chlorate cartel (Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final, Case COMP/38.695). It paid this fine and, together with its subsidiary, contested the (...)

The Commission had jointly and severally sanctioned several companies belonging to the undertakings in the heat stabilisers cartel (Case COMP/38589). For separate reasons, the Commission subsequently amended its original decision by adopting amending decisions in respect of Akzo and GEA Group. (...)

More than 12 years after the opening of the investigation into the heat stabilisers cartel, the Court of First Instance, first, annuls the infringement decision against certain companies of the Akzo group while reducing the amount of the fine imposed on the others and, second, dismisses the (...)

After the judgments of January 2015 concerning the hydrogen peroxide cartel (Trib. EU, 28 Jan. 2015, Akzo Nobel v Commission, Case T-345/12 and Evonik Degussa v Commission, Case T-341/12), the Commission has decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice.), the CFI confirms its (...)

This judgment of the Court of First Instance reinforces the position of victims of cartels seeking the communication of the index of documents in the Commission’s file in order to support their claims for damages at national level. More than three years after the adoption of the Commission (...)

During an inspection of one of the ethanol producers suspected of having entered into an agreement, Commission inspectors examined certain documents marked "legally privileged". The Commission inspectors found these documents to be relevant and selected them for seizure. The company concerned, (...)

The Chiquita company has fought for years against the regulations governing the banana sector. Although it helped to secure the Community’s condemnation before the WTO, its efforts to obtain compensation for its damage before the Union’s courts have been unsuccessful. In April 2005, a few (...)

In 2010, the Commission found an infringement of Article 101 TFEU against six undertakings for their participation in the Phosphates for Animal Feed (PAA) cartel. This is a very classic cartel which, from its creation in 1969, allowed the main European producers of RAPs to share the European (...)

The applicant, a professional association, requested access to the documents sent by the Spanish Competition Authority to the Commission under Article 11(4) of Regulation No 1/2003. The documents requested relate to an investigation by the Spanish authority concerning an infringement of (...)

In 2006, Arkema was fined 219 million euros for its role in the methacrylates cartel. The joint and several liability of Total and Elf, in their capacity as parent companies of Arkema, was set at 181 and 141 million euros respectively. Arkema promptly paid the required amount. 113 million (...)

Trib. EU, 28 Jan. 2015, Akzo Nobel v. Commission, Case T-345/12 and Evonik Degussa v Commission, Case T-341/12 Two judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance in January 2015 have just closed, subject to a possible appeal, a dispute between the Commission and certain members of the (...)

Trib. EU, 15 Jan. 2015, Ziegler v. Commission, T-539/12 and T-150/13 At a time when the Union has just adopted a new framework to encourage private actions for compensation for damage resulting from anti-competitive practices, the Court of First Instance has dismissed an action of this type, (...)

Trib. EU, 17 Dec. 2014, Si.mobil v Commission, Case T-201/11, EU:T:2014:1096; 21 Jan. 2015, easyJet Airline v Commission, Case T-355/13, EU:T:2015:36 The Court of First Instance delivered two judgments concerning the Commission’s examination of complaints already submitted to an NCA. These (...)

After the E.On case (this Chronicle, Concurrences n° 1-2011 and No. 1-2013), this case is the second concerning the imposition of a fine for refusal to submit to an inspection but the first concerning the seizure of electronic mail. During an inspection at the premises of the Czech company (...)

In the summer of 2013, the Commission carried out an inspection visit to Orange’s premises in France. This visit covered 4 sites, 18 offices and lasted 4 days, during which 11 computers, 5 smartphones, heard a witness, copied several hard disks and analysed 34 e-mails. For a cartel, such an (...)

In a judgment which almost coincides with that of the Court of Justice in MasterCard and Others v Commission (C 382/12 P, EU:C:2014:2201), the Court of First Instance annuls the decision by which the Commission refused to give MasterCard access to documents relating to a study on payment (...)

The length of the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 12 June 2014 is due not only to the complexity of the Intel case but also to the systematic over-abundance of its grounds. This choice, which is legitimate, may contribute to the proper understanding of the judgment by the (...)

The case law on transparency in competition procedures is continuing to develop. After having initially taken the side of transparency, the case law has become significantly stronger, allowing the Commission to refuse requests for access to documents en bloc on the basis of general (...)

Trib. UE, 14 March 2014, Cemex and Others v Commission, Case T-292/11 Trib. EU, 14 March 2014, Holcim v. Commission, Case T-293/11 Trib. EU, 14 March 2014, Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission, Case T-296/11 Trib. EU, 14 March 2014, Buzzi Unicem v Commission, Case T-297/11 Trib. (...)

Consensual" forms of competition law enforcement (transactions and commitments) are booming. Justified by considerations of efficiency and procedural economy, they are naturally not subject to judicial review. As such, the case which gave rise to the CEES judgment therefore departs from this (...)

This new transparency case follows the Commission’s prohibition on 1 February 2012 of the merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext (Decision C(2012) 440 in Case COMP/M.6166 - Merger of Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext).). A few days before the expiry of the deadline for appealing (...)

After the judgments of 14 November 2012 in cases Nexans v Commission and Prysmian v Commission (T-135/09 and T-140/09, see this Chronicle), the Tribunal has supplemented its jurisprudence on inspection operations in a case concerning rail transport. In 2011, the Commission investigated (...)

Spira v Commission, T-108/07 and T-354/08 In these cases concerning diamond distribution, the Tribunal conducted a particularly thorough review of the conditions under which the Commission disposed of complaints against certain practices of the De Beers group with respect to its suppliers. (...)

and ICFv Commission, Case T-406/08 The judgments relating to the aluminium fluoride cartel are reported here in only two respects: first, as regards the formal requirements to be met by an application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance and, second, as regards the (...)

On 11 June 2013, the Commission published a package of measures designed to facilitate, or at least to provide a framework for, liability actions for anti-competitive acts. The detailed analysis of each of these documents is beyond the scope of this Chronicle, but only the following points (...)

The applicant is a Czech association of tenants of apartment blocks belonging to the company OKD. In the context of the privatisation of OKD, Karbon Invest acquired OKD’s residential property portfolio and sold it to a third party. The applicant association, whose members have a right of (...)

The rule of no interest, no action, which makes it possible to avoid clogging up the courts with hypothetical appeals, prevents, in particular, a litigant from acting not in order to defend his personal interest, but that of a third party. The order of 15 May 2013 in the case of aid to the (...)

By judgment of 20 March 2013, the Court of First Instance annulled a Commission decision declaring compatible the - non-notified - aid accompanying the public service transport contracts between the Danish authorities and DSB, the incumbent rail transport operator (Decision 2011/3/EU, OJ 2011 (...)

Trib. EU, 7 March 2013, UOP v. Commission, Case T-198/09 The IFP is a French non-profit organization for research in the hydrocarbons sector. It has benefited from public support measures which do not qualify as State aid because of the non-commercial nature of its activity. IFP has two (...)

Trib. EU, 15 January 2013, AISCAT v. Commission, Case T-182/10 This case is emblematic of admissibility issues in aid cases. On the one hand, the Court of First Instance applies the recent case-law of the Court of Justice which tends to favour the admissibility of appeals against decisions (...)

Trib. UE (ord .), 7 March 2013, Henkel v. Commission, Case T-64/12 Trib. UE (ord. prés.), 23 January 2012, Henkel v. Commission, aff. T-607/11 R Must an action brought against an act which, first, does not adversely affect the applicant and, second, has lapsed, be dismissed on the ground (...)

Trib. UE (ord.), 19 February 2013, Provincie Groningen and Stichting Het Groninger Landschap v. Commission, cases T-15/12 and T-16/12 The Netherlands notified to the Commission a draft environmental aid scheme. The scheme consisted of a grant scheme for the purchase of land for protection by (...)

Trib. EU (Pres. Ord.) 11March 2013, Pilkington v Commission, Case T-462/12 R The order of 11 March 2013 by which the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Union in his capacity as Judge hearing applications for interim measures ordered the Commission to refrain from (...)

CJEU, 22 January 2013, Commission v. Tomkins, Case C-286/11 P By that judgment, the Court held that, in the present case, the liability of the parent company, in this case Tomkins, was purely derivative and ancillary and thus depended on that of its subsidiary Pegler, those two companies (...)

Trib. EU (Pres. Ord.), 17 January 2013, Slovenia v. Commission, Case T-507/12 R The interim relief judge reiterates, once again, the need for the applicants to substantiate with solid evidence their allegations regarding the urgency of the interim measures they are seeking. The company Elan, (...)

The present case concerns the public funding of NDLA, a cooperation body between local authorities responsible for the distribution of books and digital media for schools. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority has found, without initiating the formal investigation (...)

Trib. EU, 12 December 2012, Almamet v Commission, T-410/09 After the Nexans and Prymians judgments (see above)), the Almamet case, concerning the calcium carbide and magnesium cartel, provides a further example of the application of the case law principles to the control of Commission (...)

Ord. President of the Trib. EU, 16 November 2012, Akzo Nobel and others. c/ Commission, T-345/12 R, and 29 November 2012, Alstom c/ Commission, T-164/12 R) The issue of access to the evidence contained in the Commission’s file and, in particular, the leniency applicants’ statements, has (...)

Trib. UE, November 14, 2012, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission, T-135/09 and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia v Commission, T-140/09 By two judgments of 14 November 2012, the Tribunal develops its case law on the review of inspection decisions in cartel matters. After receiving an (...)

Ord. President of the Trib. EU, 19 September 2012, T-52/12 R Greece v Commission The interim relief judge shall suspend the order for recovery of aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the common market. In December 2011, the Commission declared certain aid to the Greek agricultural (...)

Trib. EU, 13 September 2012, Protected c/ Commission, T-119/09 The Tribunal is applying its jurisprudence on the review of dismissals of complaints in a case involving the allegation of abuse of dominance. In 2006, Protégé International Ltd. complained to the Commission about the existence (...)

Trib. EU Ord. of 12 June 2012, Vesteda Groep v. Commission, T-206/10 Trib. EU , IVBN/Commission, 13.07.12, T-201/10 Trib. UE , Woonlinie and Others v Commission, T 202/10 and Woonpunt and Others v Commission, T-203/10. The vocabulary of State aid law practitioners has been enriched with (...)

Trib. UE, 27 June 2012, Bolloré v. Commission, Case T-372/10 The Bolloré judgment of 27 June 2012 concerns the "re-adoption" of a Commission decision annulled by the Court for breach of the rights of the defence. The Court of First Instance provides some clarification on the infringements of (...)

Trib. EU, 27 June 2012, Coats Holdings v Commission, Case T-439/07, "Closures". Trib. EU, 27 June 2012, Berning & Söhne v Commission, Case T-445/07, "Closures". Trib. EU, 27 June 2012, YKK and Others v Commission, Case T-448/07, "Closures". Three judgments delivered by the Court of (...)

Trib. EU, 27/6/2012, Microsoft v Commission, Case T-167/08 The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2012 is the epilogue of the ’Microsoft case’, which began almost 14 years earlier. This judgment provides several clarifications on the concept of periodic penalty payment, (...)

ECN, Resolution of the Meeting of Heads of the European Competition Authorities, "Protection of leniency material in the context of civil damages actions", 23 May 2012 As the debate on access to documents of competition authorities, in particular in the context of cartels detected through (...)

Trib. EU, 22 May 2012, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission, Case T-344/08 The EnBW ruling may have briefly delighted the proponents of transparency in competition matters before plunging them into nostalgia. The Court of First Instance annulled the refusal to disclose to a cartel (...)

EFTA Court, 18 April 2012, Posten Norge v EFTA Surveillance Authority, Case E-15/10 A judgment of the EFTA Court of 18 April 2012 completes the indications provided by the EU Court in the KME judgment (8 December 2011, KME Germany and Others v Commission, cases C 272/09 P and C-389/10 P, see (...)

Trib. EU, 22 March 2012, Slovak Telekom v. Commission, cases T-458/09 and T-171/10. Following an inspection visit to the premises of Slovak Telecom, an undertaking suspected of abuse of a dominant position, the Commission sent Slovak Telecom a simple request for information under Article (...)

Trib. EU, 8 March 2012, Iberdrola v Commission, Case T-221/10 Trib. UE (ord.), 21 March 2012, Ebro Foods v. Commission, Case T-234/10 Trib. UE (ord.), 21 March 2012, Modelo Continente Hipermercados v. Commission, Case T-174/11 Trib. UE (ord.), 21 March 2012, Telefónica v. Commission, (...)

(see also, supra, "Agreements" column, obs. Mr. Debroux) Trib. UE, 9 March 2012, Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission, Case T-192/07 In 2003, the association of winegrowers in the Cognac region lodged a complaint with the commission. It denounced the introduction of (...)

Trib. EU, 15 December 2011, CDC HydrogenPeroxide v Commission, Case T-437/08 Can transparency and clemency go hand in hand? The Court of First Instance seems to think so; by its judgment of 15 December 2011, it annulled the decision by which the Commission refused to transmit to a third (...)

(See also, supra, "Concentrations" column, obs. D. Berlin) Trib. UE (ord. prés.), 24 November 2011, Édition Jacob v. Commission, aff. T-471/11 R Lagardère’s acquisition of Vivendi Universal’s publishing assets has for almost eight years been the subject of a dispute between Editions Odile (...)

Trib. EU, 8 November 2011, Idromacchine and Others v Commission, Case T-88/09 The Tribunal conducts a particularly thorough review of the decision to dismiss a complaint in order to uphold it. The Commission had received several complaints alleging various practices contrary to Articles (...)

GCEU (Pres. Ord.), 14 October 2011, Rousse Industry v. Commission, Case T-489/11 This case concerns a decision ordering the recovery of incompatible aid in the form of unpaid debts owed to the Bulgarian State by the company Rousse. Since the conditions for granting emergency measures are (...)

GCEU, 12 October 2011, Association belge des consommateurs test-achats v. Commission, case T-224/10 The Belgian consumer association Test-achats had learned in 2009 of EDF’s planned takeover of Segebel. The latter was the second operator on the electricity market in Belgium, behind (...)

GCEU, 8 November 2011, Idromacchine a.o. v. Commission, Case T-88/09 A delay in the construction of a chemical tanker had led Italy to request the extension of a shipbuilding aid programme. The Commission granted the request, pointing in its decision to the delay attributable to the supplier (...)

GCEU, 8 December 2011, Deutsche Post v. Commission, Case T-296/09 Since it was launched in 1989, the reorganisation of the German Post Office has led to an arm wrestling between the private transport companies (UPS and TNT) and Deutsche Post over the existence of abusive practices and state (...)

GCEU (ord.), 20 January 2012, Groupe Partouche v. Commission, Case T-315/10 The Tribunal reminds litigants and their counsel that any application, in order to be admissible, must be clear and precise. Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that every (...)

Trib. UE (ord.), 11 January 2012, Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v. Commission, Case T-58/10 The city of Amsterdam is planning to invest 42 million euros in the expansion of its Sports Palace, a complex with a large capacity for concerts and other events. The Dutch authorities notified the project (...)

Trib. UE (ord.), 9 January 2012, Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission, Case T-407/09 The most fertile ground for questions of admissibility of State aid appeals is the standing of third parties to the procedure (beneficiary, competitors, associations, trade unions). Fewer cases (...)

At the end of the public consultation launched in the spring of 2010 (this column, Concurrencesn° 2-2010, p. 126), the Commission adopted, on 17 October 2011, three texts whose purpose is to "increase interaction with the parties in antitrust proceedings" and to "strengthen the mechanisms for (...)

EDH Court, 27 September 2011, Menarini Diagnostics v. Italy, no. 43509/08 Menarini is an Italian company which was fined EUR 6 million in 2003 by the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato for participating in a cartel prohibited by national competition law. In an action against (...)

Trib. EU (ord.), 22 September 2011, Athinaiki Techniki v Commission, Case T-94/05 RENV II The judicial odyssey that has seen the Greek company Athinaiki Techniki oppose the Commission since 2005 has just ended with the dismissal of the case. The company had denounced to the Commission the (...)

Trib. EU (ord.), 6 September 2011, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Parliament and Council, Case T-18/10 After the Etimine and Norilsk Nickel cases (orders of the Tribunal of 7 September 2010, T-532/08 and T-539/08, see this Chronicle, Concurrences n° 4-2010) in which the Court of First (...)

Trib. UE (ord. prés.), 9 June 2011, DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission, Case T-533/10 R Trib. EU (Pres. Ord.), 10 June 2011, Eurallumina v. Commission, Case T-207/07 R Trib. UE (ord. prés.), 12 July 2011, Emme v. Commission, aff. T-422/10 R Trib. UE (ord. prés.), 15 (...)

Trib. EU, 24 May 2011, Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission, cases T-109/05 and T-444/05 By two judgments of 24 May 2011, the Court of First Instance has just supplemented its case-law - and that of the Court of Justice - on the application of the transparency rules arising from (...)

Trib. EU, 24 May 2011, Batchelor v Commission, Case T-250/08 A Member State may decide that events which it considers particularly important (Olympic Games, Football World Cup, etc.) should be broadcast on its territory on a free television channel accessible to a large part of the (...)

GCEU, 19 May 2011, Ryanair v. Commission, Case T-423/07 In a judgment of 19 May 2011, the Court of First Instance clarifies the obligations of the Commission when it receives a complaint concerning the existence of anti-competitive practices, as well as the formal requirements that (...)

The papers gathered in this section provide various points of views on the notion of effect on commerce between member States in EU law, with some US point of view. Professor David Bosco in a brief introduction focuses on the evolution of the notion. According to Irene Luc, Chief legal officer (...)

Trib. EU, 24 March 2011, Viega v Commission, Case T-375/06, "Fittings". Trib. UE, 24 March 2011, Legris Industries v. Commission, Case T-376/06, "Fittings". Trib. EU, 24 March 2011, Comap v Commission, Case T-377/06, "Fittings". Trib. EU, 24 March 2011, IMI and Others v Commission, Case (...)

Trib. UE, 3 March 2011, Areva and Others v Commission, cases T-117/07 and T-121/07, "Gas Insulated Switchgear". Trib. UE, 3 March 2011, Siemens and VA Tech Transmission & Distribution v Commission, "Gas Insulated Switchgear", cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 (See also, supra, "Agreements" (...)

GCEU (ord. pres.), 2 March 2011, 1. garantovaná v Commission, case T-392/09 R, "Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries". After an emergency procedure lasting almost seventeen months, the Slovak company Garantovaná finally obtained what so many others (...)

GCEU (ord. prés.), 17 February 2011, Endesa and Endesa Generación v. Commission, case T-490/10 R While competitors of the beneficiaries of aid schemes frequently see their appeals against decisions of non-objection being broken on the admissibility hurdle, two Spanish companies have managed (...)

Trib. EU, 15 December 2010, E.ON Energie v. Commission, Case T-141/08 "Any seal keeper, and any individual who is convicted of maliciously and deliberately breaking a seal, shall be punished[…], together with his accomplices, with twelve years’ imprisonment in irons for breaking a seal (...)

GCEU, 15 December 2010, CEAHR v. Commission, case T-427/08 In July 2008, the Commission refused to pursue an investigation initiated following a complaint from independent watchmakers who denounced the existence of a cartel and the abuse of a dominant position by manufacturers of Swiss (...)

Trib. EU, 10 December 2010, Ryanair v. Commission, cases T-494/08 to T-500/08 and T-509/08. The Ryanair judgment of 10 December 2010 is the first case in which the Court of First Instance has applied the very recent case-law of the Court of First Instance (judgment of 29 June 2010, C-139/07 (...)

UECG (ordained), 24 November 2010, Concord Power Nordal v. Commission, Case T-317/09 GCEU (ord.), 24 November 2010, RWE Transgas v. Commission, Case T-381/09 Very briefly, two orders granting the objections of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in actions for annulment of letters (...)

GCEU, 26 October 2010, CNOP and CCG v. Commission, case T-23/09 GCEU (ord.), 16 June 2010, Biocaps v. Commission, Case T-24/09 Appeals against decisions on the opening and conduct of inspections are increasing. In addition to the seal-breaking case previously examined, we note the judgment (...)

CFI, 6 October 2009, MABB v Commission, Case T-24/06 MABB v Commission is one of the three cases concerning German aid to digital terrestrial television (DTT) discussed in the State aid section of this issue of the Review (judgments of 6 October 2009, Germany v Commission, T-21/06 and FAB v (...)

Trib. UE, 13 September 2010, TF1 v Commission, Case T-193/06 The French support measures for audiovisual and film production have given rise to several Commission decisions under the State aid control rules. In the case which gave rise to the judgment of 13 September 2010, TF1 contested the (...)

GCEU (ord.), 7 September 2010, Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta and Umicore v. Commission, Case T-532/08 GCEU (ord.), 7 September 2010, Etimine and Etiproducts v. Commission, Case T-539/08 The Treaty of Lisbon has amended certain conditions for the admissibility of actions for annulment by (...)

Trib. UE (ord.), 2 September 2010, Schemaventotto v. Commission, Case T-58/09 Ruling by way of order on a plea of inadmissibility, the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by an Italian undertaking against a Commission decision concerning the application of (...)

Eur. Comm., dec. C(2010)0544, 23 July 2010, Perindopril, case COMP/E-1/39612 In December 2010, the Commission made available to the public on its website the non-confidential version of a decision taken under its inspection powers (Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003) in the context of an (...)

Trib. EU, 7 July 2010, Agrofert v Commission, Case T-111/07 How can transparency (Regulation 1049/2001) be reconciled with the rules on restricted access to the file in competition proceedings? The answer provided by the Agrofert ruling, delivered on 7 July, seems to have already been caught (...)

Trib. EU, 25 June 2010, Imperial Chemical Industries v. Commission, Case T-66/01 On 25 June 2010, the Tribunal delivered its judgment in the Soda Ash case. This judgment was awaited: the facts alleged against ICI for abuse of a dominant position dated back to the period between 1983 and (...)

Trib. UE, 9 June 2010, Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, Case T-237/05 This case concerns two requests for access to several sets of documents relating to a merger between Lagardère and Vivendi Universal. This operation was declared compatible, subject to conditions, by the Commission on 7 (...)

Trib. UE, 18 March 2010, Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission, Case T-94/08 Trib. EU, 18 March 2010, Forum 187 v Commission, Case T-189/08 It is on the ground of legal interest in bringing proceedings that the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the actions brought by (...)

Trib. UE, 3 March 2010, Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission, Case T-163/05 Trib. UE, 3 March 2010, Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission, Case T-36/06 In addition to the fact that it monopolises this column, the question of the admissibility of appeals by private individuals (...)

EFTA Court, 30 March 2010, Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen v EFTA Surveillance Authority, Case E-6/09 The EFTA Court agrees with the interpretation of Article 108(1) TFEU and Regulation 659/1999 that the rejection of a complaint concerning existing aid is not subject to appeal (Judgment of (...)

Eur. Comm, 6 January 2010, Public consultations: Best practices in antitrust proceedings and submission of economic evidence; Hearing Officers’ guidance paper On 6 January 2010, the Commission published on its website three documents on improving the transparency and predictability of (...)

CFI, 18 November 2009, Scheucher-Fleisch and Others v Commission, Case T-375/04. Trib. EU (ord.), 9 December 2009, Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission, Case T-481/07 These two decisions illustrate the pitfalls and difficulties of handling actions for annulment by third parties against Commission (...)

CFI (ord.), 25.11.2009, Andersen v. Commission, Case T-87/09 While decisions not to open the formal phase are subject to a dual admissibility regime, the situation regarding appeals against decisions to open this second phase is apparently much less delicate. In Andersen v Commission, the (...)

– IFC, 2 September 2009, E.ON v. Commission, Case T-57/07 The concentration regulation seeks to prevent rather than cure. In the action for annulment (Article 230(4) EC), the exact opposite is true. The inadmissibility order E.ON v Commission demonstrates this. The Commission has declared (...)

European ombudsman, decision on complaint 1935/2008/FOR (confidential) against the European Commission, Intel case Although not covered by Community case law on procedural matters, the European Ombudsman’s decision on the conduct of the Article 82 proceedings against Intel is noteworthy. (...)

– CFI (order), 13 July 2009, Sniace v Commission, Case T-238/09 R Since the conditions for granting the application for interim measures are particularly strict, the applicants must pay particular attention to the presentation of their arguments and evidence, at the risk of having their (...)

– TPICE (ord.), 18 juin 2006, Agrofert Holding c/ Commission, aff. T-111/07 CFI (ord.), 10 July 2009, Editions Odile Jacob v Commission, Case T-237/05 Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents is increasingly invoked for the purpose of taking evidence in the preparation of (...)

– CFI, 1 July 2009, ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission, Case T – 24/07. Participants in a cartel cannot escape fines for procedural reasons." This clear message from the Competition Commissioner, launched on 30 September 2009, when he announced the sanctions imposed on the members of (...)

CFI, 19 June 2009, Socratec v. Commission, Case T-269/03 IFC, 19 June 2009, Qualcomm v. Commission, Case T-48/04 Both judgments relate to the Commission’s 2003 decision approving the merger between DaimlerChrysler and Deutsche Telekom for the creation of a motorway toll collection system. (...)

CFI, 11 June 2009, Confservizi v Commission, Case T-292/02 CFI, 11 June 2009, ACEA v Commission, Case T-297/02 CFI, 11 June 2009, AMGA v Commission, Case T-300/02 CFI, 11 June 2009, AEM v Commission, Case T-301/02 CFI, 11 June 2009, Acegas v Commission, Case T-309/02 CFI, 11 June 2009, ASM (...)

CFI, 9 June 2009, NDSHT v Commission, Case T-152/06 The background to this dispute was a number of measures granted by the City of Stockholm before Sweden’s accession in 1995. A competitor had lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging that these measures were illegal and incompatible (...)

CFI (ord.), 14 May 2009, US Steel Koice v Commission, T-22/07 Not every decision of the Commission is necessarily challengeable. Especially if it is not a "decision" and if it does not emanate from the Commission. The CFI points out that appearances are sometimes misleading. This case (...)

CFI, 7 May 2009, NVV and Others v Commission, Case T-151/05. This case concerns the merger of two Dutch pigmeat slaughterhouses, a merger cleared by the Commission under the first phase of Regulation 139/2004 (see Merger in this issue of Merger Review). That decision was the subject of a (...)

CFI, 31 March 2009, ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission, Case T-405/06. This case mainly raises three procedural issues: (1.) the succession of the ECSC and EC Treaties, (2.) the imputation of the conduct of a subsidiary to the parent company and (3.) the limitation period, the (...)

CFI, Second Chamber, 10 February 2009, Deutsche Post AG and DHL International v Commission, Case T-388/03. This case illustrates, once again, the complexity of the Commission’s examination of the frequently raised question of the standing of economic operators to act against a Commission (...)

CFI, 18 December 2008, Componenta Oyj v. Commission, Case T-455/05 It is a rule of litigation that the legality of a decision must be assessed on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time it adopted it (see, for example, ECJ, 10 July 1986, Belgium v Commission, (...)

CFI, 10 December 2008, Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission, Case T-388/02 In response to criticisms of the doctrine and invitations from several Advocates-General, the case law on the admissibility of appeals against Commission decisions on State aid seems, for some time now, to have been (...)

CFI, 28 November 2008, Hotel Cipriani a.o. v. Commission, joined cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 The Commission frequently pleads against the admissibility of actions brought by individuals against its decisions with regard to general aid schemes, seeking to see firmly established, (...)

CFI, 22 October 2008, TV2/Danmark v Commission, Case T-309/04. From a procedural point of view, the TV2 case will attract attention for the clarifications made with regard to admissibility and, more particularly, the notion of interest in bringing proceedings. For the general presentation of (...)

Between 1999 and 2006, the CFI reduced the Commission’s total cartel fines by around 23%. This "generosity" helps to explain why almost 85% of cartel fine decisions are appealed (C. Veljanovski, "Cartel Fines in Europe: Law, Practice and Deterrence", 30 World Competition 2007, p. 65). The (...)

CFI, 18 June 2008, Hoechst v Commission, Case T-410/03, "Sorbates". CFI, 1 July 2008, Compagnie maritime belge (CMB) v Commission, Case T-276/04 Two judgments clarify the relationship between, on the one hand, the limitation rules arising from Regulation No 2988/74 and, on the other hand, (...)

CFI (Pres. Order), 18 March 2008, Aer Lingus v. Commission, Case T-411/07 R Referral orders in merger control are rare. The one issued following the proposed Ryanair/Aer Lingus merger calls for several observations. After the failure of its takeover bid following the prohibition decision (...)

CFI (Pres. Order), 14 March 2008, Buczek Automotive v Commission, Case T-1/08 R CFI (Pres. Order), 14 March 2008, Huta Buczek v. Commission, Case T-440/07 R It is settled case-law that only in very exceptional circumstances can financial damage justify the granting of provisional measures. (...)

ECJ, 6 December 2007, Commission v Ferriere Nord, Case C-516/06 P In a judgment delivered without conclusions, the Court of Justice censured the Court of First Instance and clarified the admissibility of an action for annulment brought against an order for payment of a fine in a case mixing (...)

ECJ, 6 December 2007, Commission v Ferriere Nord, Case C-516/06 P In a judgment delivered without conclusions, the Court of Justice censured the Court of First Instance and clarified the admissibility of an action for annulment brought against an order for payment of a fine in a case mixing (...)

CFI, 12 October 2007, Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse v Commission, Case T-474/04. The various incentives for reparation actions by cartel victims deserve to be highlighted in the litigation relating to the disclosure of information gathered in the framework of infringement (...)