The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, clarifying that the automatic nullity of anticompetitive agreements established in Article 101(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not apply to a clause contained in a distinct agreement when that clause does not come within the agreement declared incompatible with Article 101 TFEU under Commission’s decisions.
The Court also confirmed that a national court must take into account the legal findings of a Commission decision when ruling on agreements, decisions or practices under Articles 101 or 102 TFEU which are, or are liable to be, the subject of a Commission decision. However, the Court clarified that the binding effects of Commission’s decisions are limited to the constituent elements of the infringement established therein (i.e., nature and material, personal, temporal and territorial scope) and to contracts concluded to implement or give effect to the anticompetitive conduct covered by those decisions.
Judgement
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which dismissed BdM Banca’s claim for damages against the Commission following the Commission’s 2015 State aid decision in the Tercas case.
The case has its origin in a 2015 State aid decision. In that decision, the Commission had declared the financial support by the Italian Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi (FITD) to Banca Tercas as imputable to the Italian State and as unlawful, incompatible State aid to be recovered. That decision was later annulled by the EU Courts. BdM Banca, which acquired Banca Tercas, claimed to have suffered damage due to that decision because of customers losing confidence in the bank. Its action for non-contractual liability against the Commission was dismissed by the General Court in 2023.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed the General Court’s view that part of the alleged damage was time-barred and that the applicant failed to prove a sufficient causal link between the Commission decision and the alleged damage. The Court of Justice, however, set aside the General Court’s judgment in part, holding that – unlike the General Court had decided – the Commission’s State aid decision entailed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law to establish non-contractual liability of the Commission. Nevertheless, given that the requirements to engage such liability are cumulative and that the requirement of a direct causal link was not established, the Commission was not found liable for the alleged damage. The appellant’s action was therefore dismissed.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court.
With its ruling, the General Court fully upheld the Commission's decision not to designate Microsoft Edge as an important gateway under the DMA.
This judgment strengthens the legal certainty for the application of the DMA rebuttal mechanism and confirms that the Commission’s assessment in this case was sound and evidence based.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in Joined C-258-260/23 Imagens Médicas Integradas e o.
The Court considers that, in principle, no priori judicial authorization is required for competition authorities to seize professional email correspondence in the context of inspections in business premises. The protection of individuals against abuse and arbitrariness however requires a legal framework and strict limitations, and safeguards in the form of a full ex post judicial review.
The Court expressed a reservation that, where such documents are seized from devices belonging to individuals who use the devices for both private and professional purposes, access may constitute a serious, or even particularly serious, interference with the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned. In such cases, potentially after the devices have been sealed, access must be subject to prior review by a court or by an independent administrative body.
The Commission will assess the concrete implications of the ruling on its inspection powers and practice.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
With the exception of (i) a rule which, in the event of an early transfer of a player or trainer to a new club, would deprive the agent of proceeds retroactively; and (ii) a non-approaching rule vis-à-vis football players agents’ exclusive clients outside transfer windows, the Court did not consider the various rules included in FIFA’s football players’ agents regulation likely to qualify as an infringements by object or by their very nature, but rather likely as having to be assessed by their effects.
Consequently, it did not exclude the possibility that such rules could be considered to fall outside the scope of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU on the basis of legitimate objectives in the public interest, while specifying that objectives of purely economic nature cannot, on their own, qualify as such.
The CJEU considered that the conditions required to establish efficiencies and/or objective justifications may also take into account wider benefits to non-direct beneficiaries or addressees of a specific rule adopted by a sports federation like FIFA, provided that a fair share of the benefits accrues to all users considered as a whole.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court upholding the 2024 decision in which the Commission found that unlawful investment aid granted in 2017 and 2018 to some large agricultural enterprises was incompatible with the internal market and ordered its recovery.
In its judgment, the General Court confirmed that the Commission was right to consider that the absence of the ex-ante proven incentive effect cannot be remedied through the assessment conducted ex- post.
The General Court has also recalled that the Commission is generally bound by its Guidelines once it has adopted and published them and given that the Member State did not request a direct application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and that the 2014 Guidelines did not depart from the Treaty and are accepted by Member States. Therefore, adhering to the Guidelines cannot be considered as violation of procedural rights of the applicants by the Commission.
The General Court also recalls that as the procedure for reviewing State aid provided for in Article 108 TFEU is initiated only in respect of the Member State responsible for granting the aid, only the Member State concerned, as the addressee of the future Commission decision, may rely on actual rights of defence, and that therefore aid beneficiaries cannot rely on rights of defence, including the right to be heard.
The Court also concludes that the reasoning of the decision is not flawed and provided sufficient motivation regarding its temporal and material scope.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice, which upholds the 2024 General Court’s ruling and annuls the 2021 Commission State aid decision approving measures under the German support scheme for Combined Heat and Power. In its decision, the Commission concluded that the scheme involved the use of State resources and thus constituted State aid.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice found that the financing of the scheme did not amount to State resources and hence the scheme does not constitute State aid.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice.
The Court clarified that an exemption from VAT for services provided between undertakings to carry out banking, insurance or pension fund transactions constitutes State aid.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment including to assess its implications for its case practice.
The CJEU held that the Meca-Medina exception which under certain conditions exempts agreements between undertakings from the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements (laid down in Article 101 TFEU) can apply, in principle, to regulations adopted by a sports federation such as the German Football League which, whilst addressing its members, regulate the use of the services of third-party undertakings not belonging to that federation, such as players' agents.
The fact that regulations adopted by an association such as the DFB produce some of their effects, not only with regard to its members, but also with regard to third party undertakings which maintain relations with those members, may prove to be necessary in order to pursue one or more legitimate objectives in the public interest which are not, in themselves, anti-competitive.
In order for the Meca-Medina exception to apply, the referring court will have to determine that a) the regulations at issue do not restrict competition by object and b) are justified by the pursuit of a legitimate objective in the public interest in the light of which they appear, strictly speaking, appropriate, necessary and proportionate. Those conditions need not necessarily be assessed in relation to each of the provisions of the regulations at issue, but in relation to a set of provisions pursuing a distinct objective or producing a distinct effect.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today’s judgments of the General Court that dismiss Ryanair’s actions for annulment against two Commission no-objection decisions adopted in 2020 and 2024, concerning an Italian aid scheme to compensate the damage suffered by certain airlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic between 1 March and 15 June 2020 (2020 decision), and the amendment of that scheme extending it to cover the year 2021 (2024 decision).
The General Court considered that the aid scheme complied with all the requirements set under Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Moreover, the General Court concluded that none of the modalities of the aid scheme led to a discrimination based on nationality, nor to an infringement of the freedom to provide services and of establishment in the internal market.
See also the Court's judgment in case T-538/24, as well as Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today’s judgement of the General Court. We will carefully assess the General Court’s ruling dismissing Apple’s actions regarding its designation as a gatekeeper in relation to the App Store and iOS. This is an important step for the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act and for the pursuit of more contestability and fairness in digital markets.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the European Court of Justice which dismisses Google’s appeal against the General Court ruling of 14 September 2022 in its entirety.
The General Court ruling had largely upheld the Commission’s July 2018 decision in the Android case. The decision had found that Google had abused its dominant position and imposed on Google and Alphabet a fine of € 4.3 billion. The fine had been reduced by the General Court on 14 September 2022 to € 4.1 billion.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice, which rejects the appeal brought by Laurent Merlin, 36 other fishermen and the association Life, against the judgment rendered by the General Court in case T-141/23. The appealed judgment partially dismissed an action for failure to act against the Commission under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice concludes that the General Court did not err in law by dismissing the action and correctly concluded that the Commission had defined its position on the measures granted by The Netherlands to Dutch shipowners for electric trawl fishing, which were cofinanced under the European Fisheries Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgement of the General Court confirming the designation of Messenger as a core platform service under the DMA. This is an important step for the enforcement of the DMA and for the pursuit of more contestability and fairness in digital markets. It means that Meta must keep offering interoperability between Messenger and other number-independent interpersonal communications services, similarly than for WhatsApp.
The Commission also takes note of the General Court’s ruling invalidating the designation of Marketplace as a core platform service under the DMA. We will carefully assess the General Court’s ruling in this regard. The impact of this invalidation is limited, because Marketplace has already been un-designated by the Commission since April 2025 due to the Business Users threshold no longer being met.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).
The Commission takes note of today’s judgments of the General Court which dismissed the actions for annulment brought by Vivendi and Lagardère against two Commission’s decisions from 2023. Those decisions required Vivendi and Lagardère to submit certain internal documents as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Vivendi breached EU merger rules by implementing its acquisition of Lagardère before merger approval.
The Commission will carefully study the judgments and reflect on possible next steps.
See also judgment in Lagardère v Commission.
The Commission takes note of today’s preliminary ruling delivered by the Court of Justice clarifying that national courts and authorities must disregard national rules allowing, under certain conditions, the suspension of a procedure intended to recover unlawful State aid that is incompatible with the internal market, unless the aid beneficiary is deprived of the competitive advantage linked to that aid.
The Commission will carefully assess the implications of the Judgment.
The Commission takes note of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Article 25(9) of the Agricultural Block Exemption Regulation (EU) 702/2014 .
In its judgment, the Court clarified that the 50 % aid deduction does not apply when the beneficiary has not subscribed insurance meeting the conditions laid down in Article 25(9) because there was no insurance available on the insurance market.
The referring court is called to apply that interpretation in the context of a national proceeding between Binanrier and Beaudeluc and the Walloon Region.
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court that dismissed Carpatair’s action for annulment against a 2020 Commission State aid decision concerning a series of measures granted by State-owned Timisoara international airport to Wizz Air and other airlines operating at that airport between 2007 and 2010.
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.