Week Ahead (23 February)

Monday, 23 February - Tuesday, 24 February – Hungary blocking EU’s 20^th sanctions package and €90 billion Ukraine loan ahead of invasion anniversary 

EU efforts to mark the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine with a new show of unity are at risk after Hungary, backed in part by Slovakia, moved to block both the EU’s 20th package of sanctions against Russia and the approval of a €90 billion EU loan intended to finance Kyiv’s war effort through 2026. 

EU diplomats had aimed to finalise the sanctions package and the loan agreement ahead of Tuesday’s anniversary, with the expectation that Brussels could unveil both measures alongside a high-level political message of resolve against the Kremlin. Those plans have now been disrupted after Budapest signalled over the weekend that it would veto the package at today’s Foreign Affairs Council. More specifically, Hungarian foreign minister Peter Szijjarto said Hungary would block the sanctions until Ukraine resumes oil transit to Hungary and Slovakia via the Druzhba pipeline, extending the veto to financial support.  

The standoff has broader consequences. Failing to land the sanctions package on the anniversary would be politically damaging, especially from a symbolic viewpoint; however, more importantly, the blockage of the €90 billion loan would have more acute consequences: Ukraine's financing needs could become critical as early as April without additional support. Hungary’s move also comes alongside threats from Budapest and Bratislava to cut electricity exports to Ukraine, following recent Russian strikes that left large parts of the country without power and heating in freezing winter conditions. 

The 20th sanctions package was intended to build on earlier rounds by tightening enforcement rather than radically expanding scope. Previous packages have progressively targeted Russian energy exports, financial institutions, technology and dual-use goods, transport, and individuals linked to the war effort. The latest round focuses on closing circumvention routes, including tougher action against third-country intermediaries, a ban on maritime services such as insurance and repairs for ships carrying Russian oil, and new restrictions on crypto-asset transactions used to evade existing measures. 

Notably, Orban’s latest veto threat comes only a few weeks before he faces national elections in April amid signs that his long-dominant position is under pressure from opposition challenger Peter Magyar. Procedurally, EU officials stress that the sanctions texts could still be adopted quickly if the veto is lifted in the coming days - nevertheless, politically, the outlook remains uncertain. 

Thursday, 26 February – Merger reform debate lands at Competitiveness Council amid growing intra-EU rift ahead of April guidelines 

EU industry and competitiveness ministers will meet on 26 February with merger policy set to emerge as a key theme of discussions, as political momentum for reforming EU competition rules collides with growing resistance from a group of smaller Member States. 

The meeting follows the informal leaders’ retreat on competitiveness and the Single Market earlier in February, where President von der Leyen confirmed that the Commission will publish revised merger guidelines in April, anchoring competition reform within a broader competitiveness roadmap to be presented at the 19–20 March European Council. That roadmap is expected to cover telecoms, capital markets, services and energy, alongside the planned “28th regime” for startups, due on 18 March, aimed at easing cross-border business formation. 

Overall, political messaging at the retreat signalled growing openness to consolidation. French President Emmanuel Macron said there was broad agreement on adapting merger rules to allow “great European champions” to emerge, while European Council President Antonio Costa argued that EU competition rules should “allow for a degree of company consolidation,” particularly in telecoms, provided firms reinvest and innovate. Defence, space, clean tech, quantum and AI were cited as sectors where scale may be increasingly prioritised. 

However, that direction has already met resistance. Last week, Finland, Ireland, Czechia, Estonia and Latvia circulated a joint paper warning against loosening merger control in the name of competitiveness. The group argues that Europe’s strength lies in “open and contestable internal markets,” cautioning that increased concentration risks weakening the Single Market rather than strengthening it. They also challenge claims, especially in telecoms that higher concentration automatically delivers greater investment. 

The five countries have requested that the issue be discussed at Thursday’s Competitiveness Council, positioning the meeting as an early test of how much political backing exists for recalibrating merger policy ahead of the Commission’s April guidelines. 

The debate will feed into a packed institutional calendar, including DG COMP’s merger conference on 5 March, an 18 March “orientation debate” within the Commission on mergers, and ultimately the publication of the new guidelines – Von der Leyen has repeatedly sought to bring forward the publication date with April suggested as the most likely month.   

Thursday, 26 February - CJEU Advocate General opinion due in Meta appeals on Commission’s alleged far-reaching RFIs 

On Thursday, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is set to receive the Advocate General’s opinion in two closely watched appeals brought by Meta Platforms (Cases C-496/23 P and C-497/23 P), challenging the European Commission’s use of broad, search-term-based requests for information (RFIs) in competition investigations. 

The non-binding opinion will be delivered by Advocate General Athanasios Rantos and follows Meta’s appeals lodged in January 2024 against General Court judgements from May 2023, which fully upheld the Commission’s approach. While advisory in nature, the Advocate General’s reasoning is typically influential, and the CJEU’s final judgement, expected in the coming months, often follows the same direction. 

Both cases turn on the scope of the Commission’s investigative powers under Regulation 1/2003. The first appeal (C-496/23 P) stems from a 2020 RFI issued in the Facebook Marketplace investigation, where Meta argued that the Commission relied on excessively broad search terms to demand vast quantities of internal documents, rendering the request disproportionate and insufficiently reasoned. The General Court rejected those arguments, confirming the Commission’s wide discretion to define RFIs and compel large-scale document production. 

The second appeal (C-497/23 P) concerns a parallel RFI linked to Meta’s data practices, again issued in 2020. In that case, Meta contended that the breadth of the request risked capturing extensive volumes of irrelevant personal data. Although the General Court upheld the legality of the RFI, it stressed that robust safeguards, including filtering mechanisms and the use of a virtual data room, are required to protect sensitive and personal information. 

The Advocate General is expected to address two core questions: how far the Commission can go in using expansive search terms to obtain internal emails, drafts and communications, and what proportionality and data-protection safeguards must accompany such demands.  

The timing is also notable. The opinion comes as Meta remains under sustained EU scrutiny, with ongoing proceedings under both the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. A finding that endorses the Commission’s broad RFI powers would further strengthen Brussels’ hand in complex digital investigations, while any call for tighter limits or safeguards could reshape how future RFIs are designed and challenged. 

Thursday, 26 February - CJEU to decide on Air France – KLM cartel fine appeal 

Also on Thursday, the EU’s top court is expected to rule on long-running appeals (C-367/22 P, C-369/22 P, C-370/22 P, C-375/22 P, C-378/22 P), by a group of major airlines challenging cartel fines imposed for price-fixing in the air cargo sector, following a non-binding opinion last year in which the Court’s Advocate General urged judges to side largely with the European Commission. 

The cases stem from a 2017 Commission decision re-imposing fines totaling €776 million on 11 airlines for participating in a cartel that fixed air freight prices, fuel surcharges and security surcharges between 1999 and 2006. The penalties were reissued after the General Court annulled an earlier 2010 decision on procedural grounds, without disputing the substance of the cartel findings. 

In September 2024, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos advised the Court of Justice of the European Union to dismiss the bulk of the airlines’ appeals, endorsing the Commission’s legal reasoning and the General Court’s 2022 judgements, which had already rejected the companies’ challenges. While the opinion is not binding, CJEU judges frequently follow the Advocate General’s recommendations, making the upcoming ruling a key procedural milestone. The appeals were brought by Air France-KLM and its Dutch subsidiary KLM, British Airways, Singapore Airlines, as well as Air Canada, Japan Airlines, Cathay Pacific, LATAM Airlines Group (and its subsidiary Lan Cargo) and Cargolux. 

Air France-KLM received the largest individual fine at €182.9 million, followed by KLM at €127.1 million. Lufthansa, which avoided a fine after alerting the Commission to the cartel under the leniency programme, also appealed aspects of the decision, disputing the Commission’s legal assessment despite its immunity from penalties. 

In his opinion, Rantos broadly rejected the airlines’ arguments but recommended that the appeal brought by SAS seeking a reduction of its fine be referred back to the General Court for further examination. This leaves open the possibility of limited procedural follow-up for that specific aspect, even if the overall fines framework is upheld. 

The forthcoming judgement is expected to confirm the durability of the Commission’s cartel enforcement decisions, particularly in cases involving procedural resets and re-adoption of fines. A ruling in line with the Advocate General’s view would further reinforce legal certainty around the Commission’s ability to correct procedural defects while maintaining substantive findings, an issue of continued relevance for legacy antitrust cases that span multiple judicial cycles.