# C_2022024EN.01002501.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping)

(Case T-612/17) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Online general search services and specialised product search services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Leveraging abuse - Competition on the merits or anticompetitive practice - Conditions of access by competitors to a dominant undertaking’s service the use of which cannot be effectively replaced - Dominant undertaking favouring the display of results from its own specialised search service - Effects - Need to establish a counterfactual scenario - None - Objective justifications - None - Possibility of imposing a fine having regard to certain circumstances - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 24/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Google LLC, formerly Google Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States), Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: T. Graf, R. Snelders, C. Thomas, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, lawyers, R. O’Donoghue QC, M. Pickford QC, and D. Piccinin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Dawes, H. Leupold and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Computer & Communications Industry Association (Washington, DC, United States) (represented by: J. Killick and A. Komninos, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Zatschler and C. Simpson, acting as Agents), Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer), Infederation Ltd (Crowthorne, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Morfey, S. Gartagani, L. Hannah, A. D’heygere, K. Gwilliam, Solicitors, and T. Vinje, lawyer), Kelkoo (Paris, France) (represented by J. Koponen and B. Meyring, lawyers), Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, P. Westerhoff and J. Weber, lawyers), Visual Meta GmbH (Berlin) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer), BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV, formerly Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger eV (Berlin) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer), Twenga (Paris) (represented by: L. Godfroid, S. Hautbourg and S. Pelsy, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)), and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)) in so far only as the European Commission found an infringement of those provisions by Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. in 13 national markets for general search services within the European Economic Area (EEA) on the basis of the existence of anticompetitive effects in those markets; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)) in so far only as the European Commission found an infringement of those provisions by Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. in 13 national markets for general search services within the European Economic Area (EEA) on the basis of the existence of anticompetitive effects in those markets;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Google and Alphabet to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Google and Alphabet to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association;

| 4. | Orders Computer & Communications Industry Association to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Computer & Communications Industry Association to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association;

| 5. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), Infederation Ltd, Kelkoo, Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV, Visual Meta GmbH, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV and Twenga to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), Infederation Ltd, Kelkoo, Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV, Visual Meta GmbH, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV and Twenga to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---