On December 18, 2025, the Court of Justice delivered a preliminary ruling in connection with an appeal by OSA, a Czech collective management organization handling copyright and collecting royalties (“CMO”), against an Article 102 TFEU infringement decision of the Czech Competition Authority.[1]
On December 18, 2025, the Court of Justice delivered its preliminary ruling in a case concerning an appeal by Lukoil against a Bulgarian competition authority decision which had imposed a fine on Lukoil for its refusal to grant access to third parties to essential infrastructure (fuel storage facilities, port terminals, and pipeline networks), originally constructed with public funds and subsequently privatized by Lukoil.[1]
On December 10, 2025, the General Court confirmed the Commission’s decision to reject Bategu Gummitechnologie’s antitrust complaint against certain train manufacturers for allegedly colluding to circumvent EU standards and abusing their alleged collective dominant position by boycotting Bategu’s products.[1]
On December 10, 2025, the General Court delivered the latest judgment in the long-running Intel saga.[1] The General Court upheld the Commission’s 2023 decision to fine Intel for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 central processing units (“CPUs”) between October 2002 and December 2007 through ‘naked restrictions,’[2] but reduced Intel’s fine from €376 million to €237 million to reflect the “temporal and material scope of the infringement”.
As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we submitted our observations on Topic Paper G – Public Policy, Security, and Labour Market Considerations.
In the past year, the General Court has ruled on several challenges to Commission dawn raids initiated against Symrise,[1] Michelin,[2] and Red Bull,[3] clarifying the limits of the Commission’s investigatory powers. In all three cases, the General Court upheld the legality of the inspections,[4] though refined the evidentiary and procedural standards governing dawn raids.[5] The most recent Michelin and Red Bull judgments, in particular: (i) clarified what constitutes “sufficient indicia” for the Commission to initiate a dawn raid; (ii) validated the Commission’s use of new digital tools to gather indicia for dawn raids and its practice of gathering information onsite and later reviewing that information over extended periods of time at the Commission’s premises (“extended inspection”); and (iii) confirmed the Commission’s margin of discretion in selecting the most appropriate investigative measure—such as dawn raids or requests for information—in antitrust investigations.
On October 1, 2025, the General Court dismissed Laudamotion’s application for annulment of the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision rejecting a complaint that Lufthansa’s concurrent acquisition of flight slots previously held by Air Berlin and conclusion of a wet lease agreement for 40 Air Berlin aircrafts constituted an anticompetitive concertation in breach of Article 101 TFEU.[1] The General Court reconfirmed that to sustain an infringement finding, there can be no alternative plausible explanation for the alleged anticompetitive concertation.
On December 21, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered a judgment on the interplay between public procurement rules and competition law.[1] The judgment replies to questions raised on a preliminary reference by the Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court on the interpretation of Article 57(4) of the Public Procurement Directive (“PPD”),[2] which states that tendering authorities may exclude from participation in a procurement procedure any economic operator involved in anticompetitive behaviour. The judgment provides the following clarifications:
In a move intended to put an end to the Commission’s recent investigation into mobile payment restrictions on iOS, Apple offered third-party developers access to the tap-and-go system (i.e., Near-Field Communication or “NFC”) on its devices.[1]