Overview   Judgement

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court dismissing the action for annulment brought by WTW Ahlers in case AT.40642 – Pierre Cardin.
The Court confirms the Commission’s approach to the calculation of the fine, including the mode of application of the 10% turnover cap foreseen in Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003, which is a mechanism to ensure that the fine is proportionate.

The judgment confirms that the right to compensation for infringements of competition law includes the payment of interest. This right to receive interest existed already before its codification in the Damages Directive.
The payment of interest shall compensate for the adverse effects resulting from the lapse of time since the occurrence of the harm caused by the infringement until the time when compensation is paid.

The judgment confirms that the no-poach agreement at issue between professional football clubs constitutes a manifest restriction of a competitive parameter (recruitment of players) which plays an essential role in high-level sport. Such agreements must be categorised, in principle, as having as their object the restriction of competition.
However, the Court notes that the agreement at issue occurred in the very specific context brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the occurrence of the pandemic is not per se such as to justify making an exception to the prohibition of anticompetitive conduct, even in the field of sport where also the stability of the teams is important, the Portuguese court will have to take account of those circumstances for the purpose of determining whether that agreement has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.
The Court confirmed that the Wouters and Meca-Medina case law (which under certain conditions exempts agreements that pursue legitimate objectives from Article 101 TFEU) does not apply to agreements that restrict competition by object. Where the agreement in question cannot be categorised as a by object restriction, it can be justified by the pursuit of a legitimate objective in the public interest, in view of which it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the scope of 2014 Fisheries de minimis Regulation.
In its judgment, in line with the Commission’s position, the Court clarified that the definition of ‘processing and marketing’ in Article 2(1)(c) of the 2014 Fisheries de minimis Regulation includes the activity of retail of fishery products.
The referring court is called to apply that finding in the context of a national proceeding between Pescheria Il Granchio Blu di JC, the appellant, and the Italian Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy (Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy), the respondent.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment, in which the Court of Justice confirmed the annulment of our 2020 decision approving the recapitalisation of Lufthansa in the context of the coronavirus outbreak.
We are currently analysing the judgment. This means it is too preliminary to say anything about what will happen now.
The Commission will continue the in-depth investigation into the recapitalisation measure opened in 2024, following the annulment by the General Court. We cannot prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court which dismisses Red Bull’s appeal against the Commission’s decision dated 23.10.2024.
Following the case law developed by the Union Courts (judgement of 16-7-2020, Case C-606/18 P - Nexans France and Nexans v Commission), the Commission had approved Red Bull’s request for reimbursement of additional costs incurred solely as a result of the continuation of the inspection at the Commission’s premises in Brussels (e.g. travel and accommodation costs).
The judgment confirms that the Commission was correct in refusing Red Bull’s request to reimburse all of its legal costs, since legal costs would have been incurred if the inspection had continued at its own premises, instead of being continued at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The judgment found that the 2024 decision did not encroach Red Bull’s rights of defence.
In addition, the judgment confirms that the reimbursement decision had no bearing on the manner in which inspections were carried out.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The European Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice, in which the Court of Justice considers that the contested Decree of 23 June 2023 does not constitute an aid scheme nor an individual aid measure that should be notified to the Commission.

The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union upholding the 2023 judgments of the General Court and thus the 2019 Commission's decision approving, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of Innogy by E.ON.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that the Commission was correct in assessing the different parts of the asset swap as two separate concentrations.
The Court of Justice confirmed that the Commission and the General Court were correct in assessing the transaction within the boundaries of the EUMR, and not through Regulation 1/2003.
Furthermore, the Court of Justice confirmed that the analytical framework applied by the Commission was sufficiently and adequately explained, and that the General Court did not reverse the burden of proof with respect to submitting evidence on the effects of the transaction.
See also Curia's press release.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court clarified the definition of undertaking and the concept of links through natural persons, within the meaning of Annex I to the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER).
In particular, the Court clarified that it is insufficient for a natural person to hold a controlling quantity of shares in an undertaking in order to conclude that such natural person is an undertaking. To this end, the natural person must exercise effective control, by participating directly or indirectly in the management of the company. In addition, the Court confirmed that Article 3(3), fourth paragraph, of Annex I to the GBER applies to natural persons which are not undertakings based on the application of the notion of “linked enterprises”.

The Commission takes note of the judgments by the Court of Justice dismissing almost all appeals brought by the airlines against the General Court’s judgments of 2022. In its judgments, the Court of Justice fully upholds the Commission’s and General Court’s assessment of the cartel conduct concerning the provision of airfreight services on a global basis and the Commission’s jurisdiction to prosecute international cartels. The Commission takes note of the decision of the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court addressed to SAS and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on SAS.
See also judgment in SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission.

The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in the Meliá case (C 286/24).
It follows from the Court’s ruling that Article 5(1) of the Damages Directive 2014/104/EU, laying down the conditions claimants in private antitrust damages proceedings need to meet to obtain a court order requiring the defendants or third parties to disclose evidence covers not only disclosure requests made in the context of an action for damages, but can also apply to disclosure requests made before the beginning of such damages actions, provided that such prior disclosure requests are foreseen under national law.
The Court further clarified that the existence of a decision by the European Commission finding an infringement of EU antitrust rules in the form of a vertical by object restriction is not, in itself, sufficient for claimants in private antitrust damages proceedings to support the plausibility of their claim for damages in order to obtain court-ordered disclosure. Such a decision may contain relevant elements for establishing the plausibility of a damages claim together with other facts and evidence in the reasonable disposition of the claimant. This is because for a damages claim to be considered plausible, the claimant does not only need to show a plausible infringement of competition rules, which is established by an infringement decision by the European Commission, but it also has to substantiate the plausibility of having suffered an antitrust harm and of the causal link between that harm and the alleged infringement of competition law. This is the case even if the decision has been adopted as part of a settlement procedure.
Moreover, the Court clarified that the standard of proof claimants in private damages proceedings need to meet to substantiate the plausibility of their damages claim in order to obtain court-ordered disclosure of evidence is lower than that of the balance of probabilities which would require claimants to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the constitutive conditions for liability under the Damages Directive have been fulfilled. Instead, it is sufficient for the claimants to show that it is reasonably acceptable to assume that these conditions are present.
Today’s preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice importantly clarifies the evidentiary requirements that claimants in private antitrust damages proceedings need to meet in order to obtain court-ordered disclosure of evidence relevant for their claim for damages.

The Commission takes note of the judgment by the General Court, which confirms the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2023 against Lantmännen for its participation in the Ethanol Benchmarks cartel.
Today’s judgment brings further clarity as regards staggered hybrid cases.
In its judgment the Court confirms that the Commission can adopt settlement decisions against one single company, while the other parties to the agreement continue being investigated under the ordinary procedure without this constituting a breach of their rights of defence.
In addition, the Court confirms that the principles of presumption of innocence and the Commission’s duty of impartiality have been fully adhered to in this case.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation 1408/2013 regarding the application for de minimis aid in the agriculture sector.
In its judgment, in line with the Commission’s position, the Court clarified that, while waiting for the implementation of a de minimis register and in without the specific declaration by the applicant regarding aid received in the three-year period, the Member State is not allowed to grant aid.
The Court clarified that the Member State has to verify whether aid has been received in three years prior to the moment the self-declaration is submitted. The Court also clarified that the self-declaration is needed at the time of the granting of the aid.
In addition, the Court clarified that the Member State concerned may classify the compensation as “de minimis aid” and thus refrain from notification to the Commission, if it complies with the conditions of the De Minimis aid Regulation for the agriculture sector.
The referring court is called to apply that finding in the context of the national dispute pertaining to the granting of compensation for the beneficiary of damage caused by wild fauna to its organic durum wheat crops in 2014.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying that the possibility for a national competition authority to unilaterally extend, by reasoned decision subject to judicial review, the deadline initially set for the closure of its administrative proceedings is not, in itself, contrary to the right to good administration, Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, provided that the postponement does not result in failure to observe the reasonable period within which the investigation must be concluded.
The Commission also takes note of the confirmation of the Court of Justice of the European Union that the reasonable duration of administrative proceedings must be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances specific to the individual case and that failure to observe a reasonable duration of the proceedings is capable of justifying the annulment of the decision only if the undertaking demonstrates to the requisite legal standard that it affected its rights of defence.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgments of the Court of Justice , which dismissed the appeals lodged by UNO and ASEMPRE against the 2023 judgments of the General Court in Cases T-514/20 and T-513/20. In those judgments, the General Court had rejected their applications for annulment of the Commission’s 2020 State aid decision concerning the compensation granted to Correos for the provision of the universal service obligation in Spain during the period 2011–2020.
In the judgments, the Court of Justice confirmed that the applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate that they were individually affected by the Commission decision and that, consequently, their actions for annulment were rightly dismissed.
See also Judgment in Asempre v Commission.

The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirming that the concept of ‘communication to the public’ of protected works in hotel rooms does not depend on the extent to which such hotel rooms are actually occupied.
The Commission also takes note of the Court’s clarification that, depending on the availability and reliability of data, collective management organisations of copyrighted works are required to take the occupancy rates of hotels into account when calculating the level of royalties to be paid by hotels, failure of which may, depending on all the relevant circumstances of the individual case, contribute to the finding of an abuse of a dominant position consisting in the application of unfair prices within the meaning of Article 102(a) TFEU.

The Commission takes note of the Court’s ruling on case C-245/24 Lukoil.
The Court clarified that where a dominant company has purchased, through a privatisation contract, fuel storage facilities and pipelines originally built by the State, it may constitute an abuse of dominant position to refuse competitors access to them. Similarly, it may constitute an abuse for a dominant company to refuse access to facilities owned by the State, but operated by that company under a concession contract.
The Court further explained that, for a finding of an abuse, a competition authority does not need to show that access to the facilities in question was indispensable, where legislation, regulation or contractual arrangements prohibit the undertaking from refusing third parties access to that infrastructure. Nor it is necessary to establish indispensability where the privatisation process or the procedure for granting the concession did not ensure the competitive nature of the price and conditions for acquisition.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment.

The Commission takes note of the Court’s ruling on case C-260/24 Lukoil.
The Court explained that the finding of an abusive margin squeeze by a vertically integrated undertaking requires the identification of an upstream market and a downstream market linked to that upstream market. A competition authority must establish that the undertaking concerned is dominant in the upstream market. It must also determine whether the spread between the prices of the products on the upstream market and those on the downstream market is either negative or insufficient to cover the specific costs which the dominant undertaking has to incur in supplying its own products on the downstream market, so that that spread does not allow a competitor that is as efficient as that undertaking to compete on the downstream market.
The Court also provided guidance on the definition of relevant markets.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court dismissing Bategu’s action for annulment against a Commission decision adopted on 15 Februrary 2023 reject-ing a complaint.
In its decision, the Commission had rejected Bategu’s claims that rolling stock original equipment manufacturers coordinated their behaviour with the purpose of boycotting Bategu’s products and delaying the implementation of European fire protection standard EN 45545-2. The Commission also rejected the claim that the original equipment manufacturers abused their collective dominant position to do the same.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court that dismisses in full Ryanair’s challenge against the legality of the Commission decision of 21 December 2021 approving EUR 2.55 billion restructuring aid for TAP.
The General Court has confirmed all the Commission’s findings.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).