The contested decision
24On 31October 2018, the applicant requested the Commission to repay to it the amount of the fine which it had paid on a provisional basis, including interest. In that regard, it noted that the 2016 decision, which is the legal basis for the amounts paid, had been set aside by the Court in its judgment of 18October 2018, GEA Group v Commission (T‑640/16, EU:T:2018:700).
25By letter of 24January 2019, with the reference Ares (2019)283284 (‘the contested decision’), the Commission rejected the request for repayment. In the contested decision, the Commission explained, inter alia, that the 2016 decision was not the legal basis for the amounts paid by the applicant. Since that legal basis was the 2009 decision, which was not set aside by the Court, there was no need, according to the Commission, to make such a repayment.
Case C‑823/18P
26On 27December 2018, the Commission lodged an appeal against the judgment of 18October 2018, GEA Group v Commission (T‑640/16, EU:T:2018:700).
27By judgment of 25November 2020, Commission v GEA Group (C‑823/18P, EU:C:2020:955), the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of 18October 2018, GEA Group v Commission (T‑640/16, EU:T:2018:700), and referred the case back to the General Court. First, the Court of Justice held that the General Court had erred in law when it held that the Commission had not complied with its obligations under the principle of equal treatment. Second, the Court of Justice held that the General Court had erred in law in holding that the time limit for payment of the fines could be determined only from the date of receipt of notification of the 2016 decision.