On 4 September 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘Court’) handed down an important judgment in the Nissan Iberia case on the commencement of the limitation period in cartel damages cases in follow-on cartel damages proceedings founded on decisions of national competition authorities (‘NCAs’) in EU Member States.
In civil law follow-on proceedings lodged in Spain by parties that suffered damages at the hands of a cartel following an administrative fine decision of the Spanish competition authority, the cartelist that was called into account (Nissan) argued that the injured party’s damages claim was time-barred. The cartelist reasoned that injured parties could be presumed to have been aware of the cartel the moment the Spanish competition authority published a summary of its decision on its website, and that they could then have lodged the damages claim.
When the European Commission publishes a summary of a decision in which it establishes an infringement of EU competition law in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Court presumes the date of publication of the summary in the Official Journal of the European Union to be the date on which potential claimants could be presumed to have been aware of the cartel. In preliminary proceedings before the Court, the referring Spanish court queries whether a similar principle applies to decisions by NCAs which publish a summary of their decision on their official website.
The Court finds that in case of a decision by an NCA, the limitation period for cartel damages claims commences once their administrative decisions have become final, i.e. when the decision can no longer be appealed. The Court’s approach thus differentiates between NCA decisions and European Commission decisions. The Court’s judgment is significant as it implies that the commencement date of the limitation period will differ in practice between NCA decisions and European Commission decisions.
Abuse of dominance prohibition
European Commission launches investigation into potential anti-competitive practices by SAP
The European Commission (“Commission”) has opened a formal investigation into the German software provider SAP. The investigation focuses on potential anti-competitive activities (namely abuse of dominance) in the market for maintenance and support services of SAP’s on-premises Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. ERP software helps companies manage, among other things, finances, human resources, and project management. It is offered both on the customer’s own servers (on-premises) and via the cloud. SAP provides maintenance and support services for its ERP software, including regular updates and technical assistance. Other companies can also provide support for SAP’s on-premises ERP software, thereby competing with SAP.
The Commission examines four specific practices of SAP. SAP requires customers to obtain all maintenance and support services from SAP and to choose the same type of service for all on-premises ERP software. SAP also (i) prevents customers from terminating unused licenses, (ii) systematically extends the initial license term, and (iii) charges reinstatement and back-maintenance fees to customers which resume services after a period of absence. According to the Commission, these practices may limit customers’ freedom of choice and disadvantage third-party providers in the market.
The Commission is concerned that these practices implemented by SAP may be exploitative toward SAP’s customers and could qualify as unfair trading conditions.
European Commission makes Microsoft commitments binding and closes abuse of dominance investigation into the bundling of Microsoft Teams
On 12 September 2025 the European Commission (“Commission”) made binding the commitments offered by Microsoft in its ongoing investigation into Microsoft’s bundling practices of its Microsoft Teams program with the Office 365 and Microsoft 365 suites for business customers.
In July 2023, following complaints from Slack Technologies, the Commission opened an investigation into the way Microsoft distributed Teams. Business application software such as Microsoft Teams is increasingly sold as Software-as-a-Service (“SaaS”). Microsoft offers suites combining multiple applications, such as Word, Excel, and Outlook, into a single product. The Commission’s formal investigation found that Microsoft holds a dominant position in the global market for SaaS productivity applications for business use and that, since April 2019, it has bundled Teams with these products. This gave Teams an unfair competitive advantage, which was further strengthened by limited interoperability between Microsoft’s other products and Teams’ competitors.
The Commission and Microsoft entered into discussions, after which Microsoft proposed changes to the way it distributes Teams. These changes were tested on the market and refined by the Commission. Microsoft has committed, among other things, to (i) offer customers in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) versions of its Office 365 and Microsoft 365 suites without Teams at a significantly lower price than the corresponding suites with Teams, (ii) allow interoperability for Teams’ competitors and certain third parties with specific Microsoft products and services, including the ability to embed the Office Web Applications (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint) into their own products and to integrate their products prominently into Microsoft’s core productivity applications, and (iii) allow customers in the EEA to export their Teams messaging data for use in competing solutions.
European Commission fines Google for abuse of dominance in online advertising technology
On 5 September 2025, the European Commission (‘Commission’) announced that it had imposed a fine of €2.95 billion on Google. Google provides various services in the online advertising sector to advertising companies and publishers which publish advertisements on websites and apps.
In June 2021, the Commission launched an investigation into Google's potentially anti-competitive behaviour in the online advertising sector. In June 2023, the Commission sent a statement of objections to Google. Google responded to this in December 2023.
The Commission has found that Google holds a dominant position in the market selling advertising space and in the market for buying of advertising space for advertisements on the open web. According to the Commission, Google abused this dominant position between 2014 and the time of publication of the Commission fine decision. In particular, Google allegedly favoured its own ad trading system, AdX, by providing it with information on best bids by competitors on the selling side and favouring it over other systems on the buyer side.
The Commission has ordered Google to cease these infringements and has given Google 60 days to propose measures to address its conflict of interest. Although the Commission is still awaiting Google's proposal, it has already indicated that a partial divestiture of Google's services may remedy the conflict of interest.
State aid
Court of Justice finds European Commission failed to incorporate public procurement law assessment in its State aid decision in Hungarian nuclear reactor case
In a judgment on 11 September 2025 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘Court’) sets aside the General Court’s judgment in a case brought by Austria against the European Commission (‘Commission’). Austria brought a case against the Commission arguing that the Commission failed to incorporate an assessment of the envisaged State aid’s compliance with public procurement law.
The case is particularly sensitive as it concerns the development and construction of two nuclear reactors on a site in Paks in Hungary. The construction contract was awarded directly to a Russian construction company, and no tender procedure was organised to select the contractor.
The Court agreed with Austria that the Commission should have assessed whether the envisaged aid measure complied with public procurement law, as the direct award of the construction contract was inextricably linked to the aid measure. Moreover, the Court found that a mere reference to prior infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Hungary for failure to comply with public procurement law was insufficient. If the Commission assesses the envisaged aid’s compliance with public procurement law, it should also provide reasons on this aspect in the aid decision itself.
This judgment is significant as it clarifies the Court’s position on the Commission’s duty to assess whether an envisaged aid measure is also compliant with other areas of EU law, such as public procurement law.
General Court dismisses appeal in Czech postal services case
On 3 September 2025 the General Court of the EU (“General Court”) dismissed an appeal brought by Zásilkovna s.r.o., a private postal company established in the Czech Republic, against a European Commission (‘Commission’) decision finding aid given by the Czech Republic to Ceská posta, the state-owned postal company in the Czech Republic to be compatible with the internal market. Ceská posta was granted state aid as compensation for a Service of General Economic Interest (“SGEI”), namely delivery of postal items, parcels, money orders and other postal services both in the Czech Republic and abroad.
Among other things, the applicant argued that Ceská posta had manipulated its pricing, enabling it to use profits from the SGEI to offer other services at below cost price. The General Court considered that, as long as there was no overcompensation for the SGEI, offering other services below cost-price by using the reasonable profit from the SGEI, does not form a breach of state aid law. If Ceská posta was indeed engaging in predatory pricing practices, that should be assessed under article 101 and/or 102 TFEU. According to the General Court, this is no ground for annulment of the Commission decision. Furthermore, Zásilkovna argued that there was no market failure requiring the assignment of a SGEI. Zásilkovna could meet the requirements, such as sufficient manned post offices, to be able to fulfil the same services under market conditions. Therefore, the General Court found no manifest error in the organising of a SGEI.
Ultimately, the General Court found that none of the arguments raised required the annulment of the Commission decision. It therefore dismissed the appeal. Interestingly, the General Court’s ruling that a state aid assessment should not also include assessment of anti-competitive effects under 101 or 102 TFEU seems to be at odds with the judgement of the Court of Justice in Paks II, that compliance with broader EU law should be a part of the state aid assessment by the Commission.
Contact
Do you have any questions about one of the topics discussed, or would you like to know what these developments mean for your organisation? Please don’t hesitate to contact our team.