Court of Justice 12 March 2026, C-160/24 (Opinion of Advocate General Emiliou delivered on 12 March 2026.)

Also known as

In this Opinion in Case C-160/24 P (JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v European Commission), Advocate General Emiliou opines that the General Court erred in disregarding a valid amending decision that supplemented the statement of reasons for the discount factor used to calculate the fine imposed under Article 101 TFEU, holding that a valid EU act cannot be treated as a mere court submission or denied legal effect absent a finding of invalidity, and that the Commission retains the power to amend a contested decision even during pending annulment proceedings under Article 263 TFEU provided all substantive and procedural requirements are met and no retroactive effect is given to the amendment. In the alternative, the Advocate General opines that the General Court's exercise of unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU was vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons, as the General Court applied the same 98.849% discount factor as the Commission without providing any discernible explanation for that choice, despite having itself found the Commission's reasoning on that factor to be insufficient. The Advocate General accordingly proposes that the Court of Justice uphold the Commission's cross-appeal, or in the alternative uphold JPMorgan's third plea, and refer the case back to the General Court.AI