Abuse

On September 9, in a landmark judgment, the General Court upheld the Commission’s 2023 decision prohibiting Booking’s acquisition of eTraveli. The ruling has far-reaching implications for acquisitions by dominant firms in markets characterized by network effects and allegedly high entry barriers. The Court held that the Commission may rely on novel theories of harm to challenge mergers that consolidate or perpetuate pre-merger competitive conditions, reinforce network effects, and allow an already-dominant company to create an “ecosystem” that rivals cannot replicate, even if that merger involves only a de minimis improvement in the dominant firm’s pre-existing offering or market position.

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]   

Background

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”.

On December 2, 2025, the European Court of Justice issued its ruling in Stichting v Apple,[1]clarifying that any competent national court in the Member State whose app store was used for the purchase of products can hear collective actions[2] on behalf of users of digital platforms for damages caused by anticompetitive conduct, without the need to individualize alleged victims or determine the exact location of their alleged harm.

The Paris Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeals”) has issued its ruling on damages in the Plavix follow-on action brought by France’s national health insurance fund (the “CNAM”) against Sanofi.[1] More than a decade after the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) found that Sanofi had engaged in disparagement practices constituting an abuse of dominant position, the Court awarded the CNAM €150.7 million, reflecting the long-term impact of Sanofi’s conduct. The judgment highlights the magnitude of potential damages in follow-on actions and illustrates how French courts evaluate long-lasting effects and the full-compensation principle.

On March 18, 2025, the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) confirmed the designation of Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as a company of “paramount significance for competition across markets” (“PCMS”) under Section 19a(1) of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (“ARC”) which enables the German Federal Cartel Office’s (“FCO”) to prohibit specific conduct of Apple in the future.[1]  This marks the FCJ’s second ruling in which the highest court affirmed the designation decision of the FCO under Section 19a(1) ARC.[2]

On December 5, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) clarified the scope of its judgment of June 27, 2024, referring back the assessment of TDF’s acquisition of Itas to the French Competition Authority (“FCA”).[2]  The Court ruled that the referral was limited to further investigation, while the final decision would be taken by the Court of Appeals (not the FCA).