The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding in full a 2020 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission had approved a Finnish measure to recapitalise the airline Finnair in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.
In particular, the Court of Justice upheld the Commission’s finding that the aid was proportionate and necessary to contribute to remedying a serious disturbance to the Finnish economy, notably in view of Finnair’s significant contribution to the economy and connectivity of Finland.
The Court of Justice further endorsed the Commission’s approach according to which it was necessary to adapt certain features of the COVID Temporary Framework in force at the time of adoption of the decision to account for (i) the significant participation of private investors in the recapitalisation, and (ii) the situation of the Finnish State as an existing shareholder of Finnair, which did not increase the proportion of its shareholding in Finnair as a result of the recapitalisation. The Court of Justice also found that the Commission correctly assessed that Finnair did not hold significant market power in the relevant markets in which it operated.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment by the General Court in case T-827/22 - Wizz Air Hungary v Commission, upholding in full a Commission State aid decision in a COVID-19 damage compensation case for the second half of 2020.
In its decision, the Commission approved, under EU State aid rules, a €1.9 million aid for the Romanian airline TAROM for the damage suffered between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020 due to travel restrictions and other containment measures concerning a number of routes linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The General Court’s judgment confirms that the Commission was right to consider that the contested measure was compatible with the internal market, and in particular that it was proportionate to the damage suffered by TAROM.
See also Curia's press release.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court which dismissed applications for annulment by the companies Millenium BCP Participações and BCP África, SGPS against a 2020 Commission Decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the implementation of the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) in Portugal was 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 findings that the scheme was implemented in breach of the criteria set out in the initial decisions approving it.
This judgment confirms the previous findings of the General Court in other appeal cases, especially those brought by Portugal (T-95/21, judgment upheld on appeal in Case C-736/22 P) and the region of Madeira (T-131/21, judgment pending appeal).

The European Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court which dismissed applications for annulment by the companies Portumo and Nova Ship Invest for annulment against a 2020 Commission Decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the implementation of the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) in Portugal was 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 findings that the scheme was implemented in breach of the criteria set out in the initial decisions approving it.
This judgment confirms the previous findings of the General Court in other appeal cases, especially those brought by Portugal (T-95/21, judgment upheld on appeal in Case C-736/22 P) and the region of Madeira (T-131/21, judgment pending appeal), which were rejected respectively in 2022 and 2023.

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 Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In its judgment, the Court of Justice rejected the Commission’s appeal against the ruling of the General Court of 26 January 2022. In its ruling, the General Court partially annulled a 2009 Commission's decision.
In its 2009 decision, the Commission found that Intel had engaged in two specific forms of illegal practices by: (i) giving wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 central processing units (‘CPUs') from Intel (so-called ‘conditional rebates'); and (ii) paying computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products (so-called 'naked restrictions').
After the General Court had first upheld the entirety of the Commission decision in 2014, the Court of Justice, upon appeal by Intel, annulled in 2019 the 2014 General Court ruling as regards the conditional rebates, and sent back this part of the decision for review by the General Court.
In its 2022 judgment, the General Court annulled the Commission's finding related to Intel's conditional rebates practice. At the same time, the General Court confirmed that Intel's naked restrictions amounted to an abuse of dominant market position under EU competition rules.
The Commission appealed the part of the 2022 judgment of the General Court concerning Intel’s conditional rebates. Therefore, today’s judgment concerns only those. On the other hand, given that the part of the 2022 General Court judgment concerning the naked restrictions has not been appealed by Intel, it has become final.
We will carefully analyse the judgment by the Court of Justice.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court which dismissed the applications for annulment by two companies against a 2020 Commission Decision. In its decision, the Commission found that the implementation of the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) in Portugal was 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 findings that the scheme was implemented in breach of the criteria set out in the initial decisions approving it.
This judgment confirms the previous findings of the General Court in other appeal cases, especially those brought by Portugal (T-95/21, judgment upheld on appeal in Case C-736/22 P) and the region of Madeira (T-131/21, judgment pending appeal), which were both rejected respectively in 2022 and 2023.

The Commission takes note of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union upholding the 2019 Commission’s decision that prohibited the creation of a joint venture by Tata Steel and ThyssenKrupp under the EU Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’).
With this judgment, the Court of Justice upholds a “gap case” prohibition under the EUMR, meaning a case where the merger is found to lead to a significant impediment to effective competition despite the fact that the merged entity is not found to be dominant in the relevant market. The Court thus confirms the Commission’s framework of review to examining potential anticompetitive effects stemming from mergers between close but non-dominant competitors.
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 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 today’s judgments by the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding a 2021 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission had approved, under the COVID Temporary Framework, a German “umbrella” scheme to support uncovered fixed costs of companies affected by coronavirus outbreak. This umbrella scheme allowed the German authorities to set up schemes to support companies that suffered from a turnover decline between March 2020 and June 2021 of at least 30% compared to the same period of 2019.
In its judgments, the Court of Justice of the EU fully upheld the Commission decision. In particular, the Court found that the Commission had correctly assessed the condition of 30% decline in turnover.
See also E. Breuninger v Commission.

(Joined Cases T-624/15 RENV, T-694/15 RENV, T-704/15 RENV)
The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the General Court upholding a 2015 Commission State aid decision. In its decision, the Commission had found that Romania’s implementation of the arbitration award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 constituted new unlawful and incompatible State aid, since it entailed the payment of compensation for forgone State aid following the repeal of an illegal State aid scheme. The Commission decision therefore prohibits Romania from paying out any compensation under the arbitral award and obliges Romania to recover any paid amount.
In its judgment, the General Court fully confirmed the Commission decision, as the COM decision also prohibits Romania to further pay any compensation and to recover any payment done under the arbitral award.

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.

On 26 September 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in four sets of joined cases: (a) joined cases C-790/21 P, Covestro Deutschland v Commission and C-791/21 P, Germany v Covestro Deutschland and Commission; (b) joined cases C-792/21 P, AZ v Commission and C-793/21 P, Germany v AZ and Commission; (c) joined cases C-794/21 P, Germany v Infineon Technologies Dresden and Others and C-800/21 P, Infineon Technologies and Infineon Technologies Dresden v Commission; (d) joined cases C-795/21 P, WEPA Hygieneprodukte and WEPA Deutschland v Commission and C-796/21 P, Germany v WEPA Hygieneprodukte and Others.
The cases concern a German scheme (SA.34045) for the exemption of stable baseload electricity consumers from network charges between 2011 and 2013
The Commission takes note of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding in full the 2021 rulings by the General Court and hence the 2018 Commission State aid decision.
In its decision, the Commission had found that certain exemptions from network charges for baseload electricity consumers in Germany in the years 2012 and 2013 amounted to illegal and incompatible State aid.
Today’s judgments confirmed the Commission’s finding that the scheme involved the use of State resources and thus constituted State aid, which the Commission had found to be incompatible with the internal market.

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which confirms the 2018 Commission decision against Gazprom. In its decision, the Commission imposed legally binding commitments on Gazprom to address the competition concerns identified in the context of its antitrust investigation into Gazprom’s practices in Central and Easter European gas markets.
Today’s judgment fully upholds the Commission’s assessment and decision. It also provides useful clarifications about the Commission’s procedure leading to the adoption of commitments decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as well as the interplay between competition law and other Treaty objectives.

The Commission takes note of today’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding in full a 2019 Commission decision. In its decision, the Commission had found that JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium received incompatible aid in the form of tax and royalty exemptions for the occupation of the public domain, by continuing the use of certain advertising panels in the City of Brussels beyond the foreseen date of removal. The Commission had therefore ordered Belgium to recover the incompatible aid, plus interest.

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).

The Commission takes note of today's judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union annulling the General Court’s judgement of 2022 and the Commission decision of 2019. In its decision, the Commission had found that part of the UK’s Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) legislation, which included a special derogation rule for certain financing income of multinational groups active in the UK (the ‘Group Financing Exemption’), constituted unlawful and incompatible State aid.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and assess its implications.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).

The Commission takes note of the judgment of the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court upheld Google’s application for the annulment of the 2019 Commission’s decision in the Google AdSense case.
The Commission will carefully study the judgment and reflect on possible next steps.
See also Curia's press release (in PDF format).