The Commission takes note of today’s judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, upholding two 2020 Commission decisions. In its decisions, the Commission approved Danish and Swedish State guarantees to Scandinavian airline SAS, aimed at partly compensating the airline for the damage suffered due to the coronavirus outbreak.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgements by the General Court, annulling a 2014 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission found that a new interpretation of a Spanish tax scheme benefiting companies acquiring foreign shareholdings is incompatible with EU State aid rules.
The Commission will carefully study the judgments and reflect on possible next steps. 
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the Court dismissed Valve’s appeal against a 2021 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission imposed a fine on Valve for restricting, together with five publishers of PC videogames, cross-border sales of certain PC video games on the basis of the geographical location of users within the European Economic Area, by entering into so called “geo-blocking” practices.
In its judgment, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment and decision.
The General Court also clarified the rules on the relationship between EU competition law and copyright, confirming the Commission’s position that the latter does not guarantee the copyright holders the opportunity to demand the highest possible remuneration or to engage in conduct such as to lead to artificial price differences between the partitioned national markets in violation of Article 101 TFEU.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The Court of Justice clarifies that Articles 106(1) and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national legislation, which grants the holder of an exclusive licence for the exploitation of mineral water springs the possibility of obtaining, without a competitive tendering procedure, an extension of its licence for successive five-year periods, (i) where this legislation would result in an abuse of a dominant position by the licence holder through the mere exercise of its preferential rights, or (ii) those rights are liable to create a situation in which the licence holder is led to commit such abuses.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union annulling a 2021 order of the General Court. In its order, the General Court upheld a 2019 Commission State aid decision. In its 2019 decision, the Commission found that a deduction of a special tax paid by German public casinos operators from the tax base of the trade tax did not constitute State aid under EU State aid rules.
The Court of Justice referred the case back to the General Court that will rule on the substance of the applicants’ arguments.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment.

The Commission takes note of today's judgments of the General Court, upholding a 2016 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission concluded that selective tax advantages granted by Belgium under its "excess profit" tax scheme are illegal and incompatible under EU State aid rules.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which sets aside a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court had considered that Lufthansa’s application for annulment of a 2017 State aid Commission decision approving €25.3 million in operating aid to Frankfurt-Hahn Airport was admissible, because Lufthansa qualified as interested party within the meaning of State aid rules.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice has found that the General Court committed errors of law and failed to state reasons regarding the admissibility of Lufthansa’s action, and referred the case back to the General Court.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court partially annulling a 2020 Commission’s State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission had found that a capital injection from PostNord Group AB in favour of its subsidiary PostNord Logistics did not constitute State aid under EU State aid rules.
In its decision, the Commission had also found that the alleged cross subsidisation between PostNord Logistics and Post Danmark, the Danish universal postal service provider, did not constitute State aid under EU State aid rules. The General Court dismissed the action of the applicants insofar as the alleged cross-subsidization is concerned.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissing two appeals against the 2021 judgments of the General Court, which fully upheld a 2018 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission imposed a total fine of €254 million on nine producers of capacitors for participating in a cartel.
See also Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v Commission.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissing two appeals against a 2021 order of the General Court. In its order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible actions for annulment of the Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme post-2021 (‘ETS State aid Guidelines'), in particular its Annex I which lists those sectors that are most at risk of carbon leakage due to high indirect emission costs and to their strong exposure to international trade and are therefore eligible for aid under the Guidelines. In particular, the General Court noted the lack of direct concern of the applicants, finding that they could only be directly affected by a Commission decision in relation to them, while further noting that a Member State may still in any case notify an aid scheme directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU where the criteria of the ETS Guidelines are not fully met.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s findings on inadmissibility. In particular, the Court of Justice found that the ETS State aid Guidelines do not constitute a challengeable measure, and that the Guidelines do not satisfy the requirement of direct concern, as the Guidelines do not have a legal effect on third parties.

Today’s judgment is the first time after the entry into force of the 2004 EU Merger Regulation that the Court of Justice of the EU rules on the legal test for the review of mergers that do not result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment setting aside the General Court judgment of 2020, which annulled the Commission decision to prohibit Hutchison’s proposed acquisition of O2 UK in 2016.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice confirms the Commission's interpretation of the legal test for the finding of a significant impediment to effective competition in cases where the undertaking resulting from the merger would not acquire or strengthen a dominant position – so-called “gap cases”.
The Court also gives some important clarifications on the standard of proof the Commission has to meet when assessing a merger. It is of utmost importance for the Commission’s work to face the same standard of proof when clearing and when prohibiting a transaction. Moreover, the Court clarified the application of the Commission’s Horizontal Guidelines to review mergers, as well as the Commission’s approach to efficiencies brought by mergers.
The Court’s guidance on the interpretation of the EU Merger Regulation will be important for many other ongoing and future cases. The Commission will therefore carefully study today’s judgment.
The Commission will continue to actively engage in the continued proceedings before the General Court.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format), as well as statement by EVP Margrethe Vestager.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In its judgment, the Court clarified that, to the extent necessary to establish an abuse of a dominant position under article 102 TFEU, a national competition authority can take into account whether the investigated conduct complies with rules other than those relating to competition law, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’). Stressing the importance of accessing and using personal data as a significant parameter of competition in the digital economy, the Court held that the incompatibility of a certain conduct with the GDPR can be an important indicator in finding whether it constitutes an abuse of a dominant position.
At the same time, a national competition authority is required to cooperate sincerely with the authorities monitoring the application of that regulation and to not depart from any decision taken by such authorities in relation to the same or a similar conduct. The competition authority, for example, must consult the authority monitoring the application of the GDPR if it has doubts about the scope of an existing decision of the latter or if similar conduct is being assessed by the latter or when it considers that certain conduct is incompatible with the GDPR, which in turn puts the consulted authority under a duty to reply within a reasonable deadline. The national competition authority remains, however, free to draw its own conclusions from the point of view of the application of competition law.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today's preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice. The Court clarifies, among others, that a vertical agreement fixing minimum resale prices may constitute a restriction of competition by object under Article 101 TFEU.
The Court stated that such agreements can be considered to restrict competition by object after having determined that the agreement presents a sufficient degree of harm to competition. This assessment is made by, taking into account the content of the agreement’s provisions, its objectives and the economic and legal context which it forms a part of. The mere fact that a vertical agreement fixing minimum resale prices may fall within the category of ‘hardcore restrictions’ for the purposes of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation cannot dispense from conducting that assessment.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissing an appeal against a 2021 judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court had rejected TUIFly’s application for annulment of a 2016 State aid Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission found that two agreements between Klagenfurt airport and TUIFly (formerly Hapag Lloyd Express) were not in line with EU State aid rules and ordered Austria to recover the incompatible aid.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed the Commission’s finding that the agreements involved State aid, as they were not in line with market conditions and therefore conferred an advantage to TUIFly over its competitors, and confirmed the Commission’s finding that the aid was incompatible with the internal market.

• The European Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the General Court that upheld a 2015 Commission’s State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the public funding granted by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo to Gdynia airport amounted to incompatible State aid and ordered Poland to recover it.

• The Commission takes note of today's judgment of the General Court dismissing the action for annulment brought by the Autonomous Region of Madeira against a 2020 State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the implementation of the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) in Portugal is not in line with the Commission's State aid decisions of 2007 and 2013. The objective of the approved measure was to contribute to the economic development of the outermost region of Madeira through tax incentives for companies creating jobs in Madeira and for activities effectively and materially performed in that region.
• In its judgment, the General Court upholds the Commission’s finding that the tax reductions were applied to companies that have made no real contribution to the development of the region, including on jobs created outside Madeira (and even the EU), in breach of the conditions laid down in the 2007 and 2013 State aid decisions and EU State aid rules.
• The judgment is consistent with the General Court’s judgment of September 2022 of the Court on the appeal lodged by Portugal against the same decision.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court dismissed Polwax’s action for annulment against a 2020 Commission’s decision. In its decision, the Commission approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of Grupa Lotos by PKN Orlen, subject to conditions.
In its judgment, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment of the impact of the transaction on the slack wax and paraffin markets. It also confirmed that the Commission adequately stated the reasons underlying the assessment of the potential risk of input foreclosure with respect to these markets.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court upholding a 2019 Commission decision.
In its decision, the Commission found that the marketing agreements concluded between the local Association for the Promotion of Touristic and Economic Flows and Ryanair at the airport of Montpellier are illegal and incompatible under the EU State aid rules. The Commission ordered France to recover the aid in full in order to restore the situation that existed in the internal market prior to its granting.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court. In its judgement, the General Court annulled a 2020 Commission decision approving, under EU State aid rules, an Italian scheme to compensate airlines for the damage suffered due to the coronavirus outbreak and the related travel restrictions.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court. In its judgments, the General Court dismissed Meta’s applications against a 2020 Commission’s decisions under Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation 1/2003. In its decisions, the Commission respectively (i) requested access to information relevant for its investigation; and (ii) imposed period penalty payments on Meta to compel it to supply the requested information.
In its judgments, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment and decisions. In particular, the General Court confirmed that the decisions (i) did not go beyond the Commission’s powers under Regulation 1/2003 since the information requested was relevant and necessary to the investigation; and (ii) did not limit Meta’s rights of defence nor breach the fundamental right to privacy and the principles of proportionality and good administration. In addition, the General Court found that the Commission had adequately stated the reasons on which the decisions were based, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).