(AGENPARL) – Wed 26 March 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 39/25
Luxembourg, 26 March 2025
Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-441/21 | UBS Group and UBS v Commission,
T-449/21 | Natixis v Commission, T-453/21 | UniCredit and UniCredit Bank v Commission,
T-455/21 | Nomura International and Nomura Holdings v Commission, T-456/21 | Bank of America and
Bank of America Corporation v Commission, T-462/21 | Portigon v Commission (European Government
Bonds)
Cartel in the European Government Bonds sector: the General Court
largely confirms the decision of the Commission
However, the General Court moderately reduces the amount of the fines imposed on UniCredit and Nomura
By decision of 20 May 2021, 1 the European Commission found that seven investment banks – UBS, Natixis,
UniCredit, Nomura, Bank of America, Portigon (formerly WestLB) and NatWest (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland) –
had participated, between January 2007 and November 2011, in a cartel in the European Government Bonds 2
(EGBs) sector. The traders of those banks had colluded and exchanged information in order to gain competitive
advantages in the issuance, placing or trading of EGBs, which had had an impact on the entire market in the
European Economic Area (EEA).
The Commission imposed fines on Nomura, UBS and UniCredit totalling € 371 million. Bank of America, Natixis and
NatWest were not fined; in so far as concerns the former two banks, because the Commission’s power to impose
financial penalties was time-barred, and, in so far as concerns the latter bank, because it had disclosed the cartel to
the Commission. The amount of the fine imposed on Portigon was capped at € 0 due to the fact that its turnover
during the preceding business year, which was used to determine the maximum amount of the fine, was negative.
Six of the seven banks (all but NatWest) brought an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking
the annulment of the Commission’s decision or the reduction of the amount of the fines imposed on them.
In today’s judgment, the General Court has largely confirmed the Commission’s decision. However, it has
moderately reduced the amount of the fines imposed on UniCredit and Nomura.
Companies
UBS Group AG and UBS AG
Fines imposed by the
Decision of the General
Commission (€)
Court
Jointly and severally:
Nomura International plc
Jointly and severally:
and Nomura Holdings, Inc.
Action dismissed
Fine maintained
Fine reduced
Jointly and severally:
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
UniCredit and UniCredit
Jointly and severally:
Fine reduced
Jointly and severally:
As regards Nomura, the General Court found that the Commission had erred in the determination of one of the
elements of the fine by refusing to use the exact data which that bank had provided to it. In the case of UniCredit,
the General Court found that the anticompetitive conduct began 17 days later than the date indicated by the
Commission.
In addition, the General Court confirmed that one single and continuous infringement had occurred and that the
exchanges of commercially sensitive information, price-fixing arrangements, market sharing and customer
allocation on both the primary and secondary market for EGBs were particularly harmful to competition. As a
result, the Commission was not required to investigate or demonstrate the effects of the traders’ conduct in dispute
on competition.
The General Court recalled that any anticompetitive conduct on the part of an employee is attributable to the
undertaking to which he or she belongs. Accordingly, banks are liable for the conduct of their traders.
Lastly, the General Court confirmed that the Commission had an interest in finding the infringement with regard to
Bank of America and Natixis, which were not fined. Their identification in the decision was capable of contributing to
establishing the infringement or to explaining the scope of the traders’ unlawful conduct.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain
conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well
founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the
NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text and, as the case may be, the abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 final of 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case
AT.40324 – European Government Bonds).
EGBs are debt securities allowing Eurozone Member States to raise cash to fund certain expenditures or certain investments, in particular to
refinance existing debt. They are offered for sale for the first time by, or on behalf of, their issuer on the primary market, and are subsequently
traded on the secondary market.
Communications Directorate