After
the Alrosa case, the General Court once again had the opportunity to evaluate the difference between the different
remedies used by the Commission to enforce Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. This time
the case did not deal with the commitments procedure, but
rather with the settlement procedure in Article 10a of Regulation 773/2004. The
Commission often switches between the different procedures (as last seen in the
Google case here) or pursues hybrid cases, such as in the present case, where
some parties are part of the settlement procedure and some part of the standard
procedure. It is therefore important to know to what extent the Commission can
use these different procedures, how they are linked and what rights
undertakings subject to these procedures enjoy. This is exactly what the
General Court had to decide on in the Timab Industries case, handed down yesterday (May 20, 2015).