Week Ahead (6 July)

Tuesday, 7 July – Paris court to rule on Le Pen’s appeal against ban from elected office, with key implications for next year’s French presidential elections

France's Court of Appeal is expected to deliver a landmark ruling tomorrow that could determine whether Marine Le Pen will be eligible to run in the 2027 presidential election, a decision with potentially significant implications not only for French politics but also for the future direction of the EU.

The case stems from Le Pen's March 2025 conviction for the misuse of European Parliament funds, after the court concluded that National Rally (RN) officials had improperly used EU money to finance party staff rather than parliamentary assistants. Le Pen has consistently denied wrongdoing, arguing that the funds were used legitimately and portraying the proceedings as politically motivated. "If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided that I am able to campaign," she recently stated, adding that an electronic monitoring order would make an effective campaign impossible.

Several outcomes remain possible. The Court could overturn the conviction, allowing Le Pen to contest the election without restrictions, although legal observers generally regard this as the least likely scenario. Alternatively, it could uphold both the conviction and the five-year ban on holding elected office, effectively ending Le Pen's fourth presidential bid and paving the way for RN president Jordan Bardella to become the party's candidate. A third possibility would see the conviction upheld while the political ban is reduced, potentially preserving Le Pen's eligibility before the April 2027 election.

Regardless of Tuesday's outcome, opinion polls continue to place the RN comfortably ahead in the first round of the presidential race, although the final field of candidates has yet to emerge. Recent polling even suggests that the 30-year-old Bardella could outperform Le Pen electorally, benefiting from stronger support among working-age and private-sector voters. Nevertheless, his potential candidacy would also expose the party to greater scrutiny given his comparatively limited experience.

Although Bardella broadly shares Le Pen’s nationalist and eurosceptic outlook, important differences remain. Having abandoned the party's previous commitment to "Frexit" and euro withdrawal after 2017 in an effort to broaden its electoral appeal, the RN now advocates reforming the EU from within rather than leaving it altogether. Even so, Bardella recently described the EU as "obsolete", reflecting the party's continued scepticism towards deeper European integration. Compared with Le Pen, however, Bardella is generally viewed as advocating a more market-oriented economic programme, suggesting that Tuesday's ruling could shape not only who leads the RN into the election, but also the economic platform on which it campaigns.

Wednesday, 8 July – General Court to rule on three Apple challenges to key DMA designation decisions

On Wednesday, the General Court, the EU’s lower court, is expected to deliver three closely watched judgements on a series of legal challenges brought by Apple against the European Commission's early decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The rulings are expected to provide the first substantive judicial guidance on several procedural aspects of the EU's landmark digital competition regime, including the Commission's designation powers and the scope of judicial review.

The disputes stem from the Commission's September 2023 designation of Apple as a DMA gatekeeper for its App Store, Safari browser and iOS operating system, alongside the opening of a market investigation into whether iMessage should also fall within the Regulation. The DMA applies to companies meeting specified quantitative thresholds, including annual EU turnover above €7.5 billion, a market capitalisation exceeding €75 billion and more than 45 million monthly active users, while empowering the Commission to impose fines of up to 10% of global annual turnover for non-compliance.

More specifically, the Court will rule on three related cases: In Case T-1079/23, Apple challenges the Commission's decision to open a market investigation into iMessage. In Case T-1080/23, the company contests its broader gatekeeper designation, arguing that the Commission misapplied both the quantitative and qualitative criteria set out in the DMA when designating iOS, the App Store and other core platform services. Finally, Case T-214/24 concerns Apple's challenge to the Commission's subsequent decision closing the iMessage investigation. Although Brussels ultimately decided not to designate iMessage as a gatekeeper service, Apple disputes the Commission's legal characterisation of iMessage as a "number-independent interpersonal communications service", arguing that the classification is both factually and legally incorrect.

Beyond their immediate implications for Apple, the judgements are expected to clarify several important procedural aspects of DMA litigation, including questions relating to the admissibility of challenges against Commission designation decisions, the legal interest required to bring such actions, and the circumstances under which companies may contest elements of the DMA framework itself before the EU courts.

Thursday, 9 July – Finance ministers expected to endorse Hungary’s revised recovery plan, bringing €10 billion in EU funds closer to disbursement

On Thursday, the eurozone’s finance ministers are expected to formally approve Hungary's revised Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) plan, marking another significant step towards unlocking approximately €10 billion in previously frozen post-pandemic recovery funding. The Eurogroup meeting – the last before the summer recess – follows the European Commission's approval of the revised plan last month, reflecting the quick improvement in relations between Brussels and Budapest since Prime Minister Peter Magyar took office earlier this year.

As a reminder, access to the funds had been suspended for several years under the previous Viktor Orban government due to persistent concerns over the rule of law, judicial independence, corruption and public procurement. Restoring relations with the EU institutions and securing the release of the frozen funding formed one of Magyar's central electoral commitments during the April election campaign that ended Orban's 16-year premiership.

According to current indications, ministers are expected to endorse the Commission's positive assessment without major difficulty. Although several fiscally conservative member states reportedly expressed reservations over the speed with which the revised Hungarian plan was assessed, Council approval is widely expected, in line with the longstanding practice of member states generally endorsing the Commission's technical evaluation of national recovery plans.

Nevertheless, Thursday’s decision will not immediately unlock the funding. Instead, it will complete another procedural milestone, after which Hungary must still submit formal payment requests and demonstrate that all agreed milestones and targets have been fulfilled before any money can be disbursed. Given the approaching end-August deadline under the RRF, Budapest will face a demanding timetable to complete the remaining implementation requirements.

Beyond the Hungarian file, finance ministers are also expected to discuss the Commission's recently published guidance on applying the EU's revised fiscal rules, particularly the criteria under which certain green and energy-security investments may qualify for additional budgetary flexibility. The guidance has generated divisions among member states, with several northern countries expressing concerns that excessive discretion could weaken the credibility of the bloc's new fiscal framework, while others have argued that greater flexibility is necessary to support Europe's energy transition and long-term resilience.

Friday, 10 July – Baker Hughes – Chart Industries faces key Phase 1 deadline as Commission assesses remedies

The European Commission is expected to reach a preliminary decision by Friday regarding Baker Hughes' proposed $13.6 billion acquisition of Chart Industries, following the extension of its Phase I review after the parties submitted remedies aimed at addressing DG COMP's competition concerns. The Commission now faces a choice between clearing the transaction with commitments or opening a more extensive Phase II investigation.

As outlined in previous reports, the transaction would strengthen Baker Hughes' position across a range of industrial and energy technologies, including LNG infrastructure, cryogenic equipment, industrial gas systems, hydrogen technologies and data-centre cooling solutions. Rather than focusing on straightforward horizontal overlaps, the Commission's review has centred on a number of highly specialised and interconnected markets spanning the broader LNG and industrial infrastructure value chain.

Although the Commission has not formally disclosed the proposed structural and behavioural commitments, market reports indicate that Baker Hughes has offered to divest part of Chart Industries' LNG processing business in an effort to resolve concerns. The Commission's investigation appears to have focused primarily on potential conglomerate effects, with competitors arguing that the merged entity could leverage Baker Hughes' strong position in gas-turbine compressors to bundle or cross-sell Chart's LNG liquefaction equipment, potentially disadvantaging rival suppliers. DG COMP has since been market-testing the proposed package with customers and competitors ahead of its decision.

The review also takes place against the backdrop of the Commission's increasing emphasis on energy security and industrial resilience. The draft revision of the EU Merger Guidelines explicitly recognises security of supply and resilience considerations as relevant factors in competitive assessment, while LNG infrastructure continues to play a strategically important role in Europe's long-term energy diversification efforts.

Nevertheless, the submission of remedies does not necessarily guarantee that the transaction will avoid a Phase II investigation. There is very limited recent precedent for the Commission clearing a merger during Phase I following the submission of a mixed package of structural and behavioural commitments. Although the proposed divestment modestly improves the prospects of a Phase I resolution, our base case remains that the complexity of the remedy package and the limited historical precedent make an in-depth Phase II investigation more likely than not.