The Commission has fined 15 major car manufacturers and the European Automobiles Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) a total of around €458 million for participating in a long-lasting cartel concerning end-of-life vehicle recycling. Mercedes-Benz was not fined, as it revealed the cartel to the Commission under the leniency programme. All companies admitted their involvement in the cartel and agreed to settle the case.

The Commission takes note of the judgment by the General Court upholding a 2021 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission found that Bank of America, Natixis, Nomura, RBS (now NatWest), UBS, UniCredit and WestLB (now Portigon) breached EU antitrust rules through the participation of a group of traders in a cartel in the primary and secondary market for European Government Bonds (‘EGB').
In its judgment, the General Court found that the Commission had a legitimate interest to address the decision to all cartelists, irrespective of whether they were subject to fines. In addition, it largely upheld the amount of the fines imposed by the Commission, with the exception of those imposed on Nomura and UniCredit, which the General Court slightly reduced.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court dismissing an appeal against a 2023 Commission decision. In its 2023 decision, the Commission rejected a complaint against a number of companies active in quartz sand extraction in Belgium for alleged anticompetitive practices. In particular, the Commission found that the complaint did not involve a sufficient Union interest to justify further investigation, especially considering that the matter had already been brought to the attention of a Belgian court and that the latter appeared well placed to remedy the issues complained of.
In its judgment, the General Court confirmed, among others, that the Commission may reject complaints when, in cases with a predominantly national dimension, national courts are well placed to address the issues concerned.

The European Commission is carrying out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the non-alcoholic drinks sector in several Member States. In parallel, the Commission has sent out a formal request for information to a company active in the personal care sector.

The European Commission has launched a call for evidence and a public consultation to seek feedback on possible revisions of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (‘TTBER') and the accompanying Guidelines.
This initiative forms part of the impact assessment phase, which follows the evaluation concluded in November 2024. The aim of the evaluation was to gather evidence on the functioning of the TTBER and the Guidelines, for the Commission to determine whether it should let the rules expire, prolong their duration or revise them in view of their expiry on 30 April 2026.
All interested parties can submit their views in any official EU language on the Commission's Have your Say Portal until 25 April 2025.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirming that for the establishment of a restriction of competition ‘by effect’ with-in the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU it may suffice to demonstrate potential restrictive effects on competition, provided that these are sufficiently appreciable.

The European Commission has fined Pierre Cardin and its largest licensee Ahlers a total of €5.7 million for breaching EU antitrust rules by restricting cross-border sales of Pierre Cardin-branded clothing, as well as sales of such products to specific customers.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court in case T-561/21 rejecting HSBC’s appeal against a 2021 Commission’s decision. In 2021, the Commission re-adopted a prohibition decision against HSBC, following the 2019 partial annulment by the General Court of the previous Commission’s decision in the euro interest rate derivatives cartel case of 2016, on the basis that the Commission had failed adequately to explain part of the methodology used for calculating the fines imposed. In its 2021 decision, the Commission explained in further detail how the fine was calculated and slightly reduced the fine amount previously imposed on the company.
In its judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s assessment and decision of 2021.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The European Commission invites comments on commitments offered by Corning to address competition concerns over its alleged exclusive dealing in relation to the supply of Alkali-aluminosilicate glass (‘Alkali-AS Glass'), a special type of glass mainly used as cover glass in handheld electronic devices.

The European Commission has today published a Staff Working Document (‘SWD') that summarises the findings of its evaluation of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (‘TTBER') and the accompanying Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty to technology transfer agreements (‘Guidelines').
The aim of the evaluation was to gather evidence on the functioning of the TTBER and of the accompanying Guidelines, for the Commission to determine whether it should let the rules expire, prolong their duration or revise them. In view of the findings of the evaluation, the Commission will now launch an impact assessment to examine policy options for a revision of the rules.

The Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (“TTBER”) creates a safe harbour under EU competition law for certain categories of technology transfer agreements. Together with the TTBER, the Commission also published the Technology Transfer Guidelines (“TTGs”). Both instruments are currently being evaluated by the Commission and this study will contribute to the evaluation by answering the evaluation questions set out in the specification for the study, based on qualitative and quantitative evidence. The evaluation questions relate to the following four evaluation criteria: (i) Relevance; (ii) Effectiveness; (iii) Efficiency; and (iv) Coherence.
See also the European Commission's press release.

The European Commission is carrying out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the data centre construction sector. In parallel, the Commission has sent out formal requests for information to several companies active in the same sector.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 - Crédit Agricole and T-406/21 – UBS (formerly Credit Suisse), rejecting their appeals against a 2021 Commission’s decision. In its 2021 decision, the Commission found that Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Crédit Agricole, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank had participated in a cartel for trading Supra-sovereign, Sovereign and Agency (SSA) bonds denominated in US Dollars on, the secondary market in the European Economic Area (EEA).
In its judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s assessment and decision. In particular, it confirmed that the type of exchanges between financial traders as outlined in the Commission’s decision constitute a restriction of competition by object. The General Court also upheld the methodology used by the Commission for the calculation of the fines imposed on the banks.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The European Commission has fined České dráhy (‘ČD') and Österreichische Bundesbahnen (‘ÖBB'), the Czech and Austrian rail incumbents, a total of €48.7 million for breaching EU antitrust rules. ČD and ÖBB colluded to prevent a new entrant, RegioJet, from accessing used wagons, thus restricting competition on the rail passenger transport market.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying that certain FIFA transfer rules governing contractual relations between football players and clubs in situations of termination ‘without just cause’ of the employment with the former club constitute a restriction of the free movement of workers under Article 45 TFEU and, subject to verification by the referring court, are unlikely to be justified.
The Court also found these rules to restrict competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU. As regards a justification under Article 101(3), the Court noted that, subject to verification by the referring court, these rules do not appear to be indispensable or necessary.
It will now be for the referring court (Mons court of appeals) to verify whether the restrictions of the free movement of workers and competition are justified.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

(Joined Cases C-29/23 P, C-30/23 P)
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU that uphold a 2019 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission had found a cartel in the Italian market of steel reinforcing bars for concrete having as its object or effect the fixing of prices and the limitation or control of output or sales, in breach of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.
The judgments confirmed the fines imposed on Alfa Acciai S.p.A. and Valsabbia Investimenti S.p.A.and Ferriera Valsabbia S.p.A. The amount of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord S.p.A. was instead reduced because the Court of Justice found that the Commission had applied different rates of reduction, without a valid justification, infringing the principle of equal treatment.
See also Ferriere Nord v Commission; as well as Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court rejecting Pharol’s action for annulment of a 2022 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission re-adopted a fine against Pharol (previously Portugal Telecom) for agreeing not to compete with its com-petitor Telefónica on the Iberian telecommunications markets, in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In its judgment, the General Court fully upheld the Commission’s assessment and decision. The Court confirms that when assessing potential competition in the context of calculating the fine, the test for what is potential competition remains the same as when assessing the substantive infringement. In this case the non-compete clause was assessed against insurmountable barriers to entry, not "real and concrete possibilities to enter".

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the General Court. In its judgments, the General Court dismissed the parties’ actions against a 2022 Commission settlement decision imposing a total fine of €31.5 million on two producers of metal packaging for participating in a cartel.
Today’s judgment brings further clarity on the nature of the principles for case allocation and re-allocation between a Member State’s National Competition Authority and the European Commission, as included in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities.
See also Silgan Holdings and Others v Commission.

The European Commission is carrying out unannounced antitrust inspections at the premises of companies active in the financial services sector in two Member States.

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Booking.com Germany case (C 264/23).
In its judgment, the Court indicated that parity clauses in agreements between online hotel reservation platforms and providers of accommodation services online are not ancillary to those agreements. Therefore, they do not fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements.
Today’s preliminary ruling also provides guidance on defining the relevant market in the context of online hotel reservation platforms for the purpose of applying EU legislation.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).