Fine Recalculations due to Insufficient Reasoning by the Commission: Cases T-106/17 JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission, and T-113/17 Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission.

The article focuses on the General Court's December 2023 judgments in the cases JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (T-106/17) and Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission (T-113/17), concerning fines imposed for cartel infringements in the Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) market. The Court upheld the Commission's findings of anticompetitive conduct but annulled and recalculated fines due to insufficient reasoning in the original decision, particularly regarding the discount factor applied to fine calculations. While JPMorgan's fine was confirmed at EUR 337 million to ensure deterrence, Crédit Agricole's fine was marginally reduced to EUR 110 million, reflecting its lesser but intentional involvement. The rulings emphasize the necessity for clear reasoning in Commission decisions at the time they are adopted and reinforce procedural rights by rejecting reliance on subsequent amending decisions to justify fines.