EU Court Confirms That National Competition Authorities Have Flexibility to Extend Antitrust Deadlines

European competition investigations seldom unfold in straight lines. They expand, contract, and change direction as new facts surface and new actors enter the frame. In a preliminary ruling delivered on 15 January 2026 in Imballaggi Piemontesi Srl v. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (C-588/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed what practitioners have long suspected: National competition authorities may extend investigative deadlines where the scope of an inquiry widens or its complexity deepens. Such extensions must be reasoned, communicated in time, and remain open to judicial scrutiny, but procedural flexibility, the CJEU made clear, is not an aberration. It is a defining feature of EU competition enforcement.

A Procedural Journey to Luxembourg

The dispute has its origins in northern Italy. On 22 March 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) opened an investigation into 19 undertakings, among them Imballaggi Piemontesi, for alleged participation in a cartel in the corrugated cardboard market. The authority fixed 31 May 2018 as the date by which the proceedings would conclude.

The investigation did not remain confined to its original contours. Over the course of 2017 and 2018, the AGCM broadened both the number of companies under scrutiny and the substance of the alleged conduct. The closing date was extended twice: first to 31 December 2018, then to 19 July 2019. On 17 July 2019, the AGCM adopted its final decision, finding that Imballaggi Piemontesi had participated in the cartel and imposing a fine of 6.15 million euros.

Judicial review followed. In May 2021, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court dismissed the company’s challenge in full. Two years later, in March 2023, the Italian Council of State partially upheld an appeal but only in regard to the amount of the fine. In August 2024, Imballaggi Piemontesi sought revision of that judgment, prompting the Council of State to refer questions to the CJEU.

The Question Put to the CJEU

At the heart of the reference for a preliminary ruling lay a deceptively simple issue: Can an antitrust deadline be extended once it has been set? More precisely, the Council of State asked whether Article 41 (the right to good administration) and Article 47 (the right to an effective remedy) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, together with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, preclude national rules that do not treat the deadline stated in a statement of objections as mandatory. Could a competition authority, by a reasoned decision, extend that deadline unilaterally when an investigation grows in scope or complexity?

The CJEU recast the question in functional terms. It asked whether Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), read alongside the right to good administration, the right to an effective remedy, and the right to a fair trial, permits such procedural latitude.

Legitimate Expectations and Their Limits

Imballaggi Piemontesi argued that the deadline set out in the statement of objections was binding and its extension violated the principle of legitimate expectations. The company contended that once the authority had fixed a date for closure, it was no longer free to move it.

The CJEU was not persuaded. It observed that nothing in the record suggested the AGCM had given any assurance that the original deadline would not be postponed. Absent such assurances, the principle of legitimate expectations could not be invoked to freeze the procedural calendar in place.

What the CJEU Decided

The ruling affirms the autonomy of member states to shape their own procedural rules, including rules on investigative timelines, provided those rules respect EU law. Effectiveness, legal certainty, and good administration remain the guiding principles.

National competition authorities may therefore extend deadlines when investigations expand or become more complex. To deny them that possibility, the CJEU reasoned, would risk undermining the effective enforcement of Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU. This flexibility is not without limits. Any extension must be adopted before the original deadline expires, must specify a new closing date, and must be supported by adequate reasoning. Crucially, decisions to extend remain subject to judicial review.

The CJEU also reaffirmed that the requirement to complete proceedings within a reasonable time is inherently contextual. Complexity may justify duration, and EU law sets no abstract maximum length for antitrust investigations. Even when a breach of the reasonable-time principle is established, annulment of the final decision will follow only if the undertaking can demonstrate concrete harm to its defence rights. The burden of proof rests squarely with the company concerned.

Practical Consequences

The judgment offers a definitive guidepost. Procedural rigidity will not be allowed to shield potentially anticompetitive conduct from scrutiny. Authorities may feel emboldened to extend investigations as new evidence emerges or additional parties are drawn in. For companies, the implications are practical rather than theoretical.

Extensions should be examined closely. When communication is late or reasoning thin, there may be grounds for challenge. More fundamentally, businesses must document, in real time, the effects of delay, such as employees who become unavailable, documents lost, or genuine obstacles to defence preparation. Generalised complaints about the passage of time will not suffice.

National legal frameworks need not treat investigative deadlines as immovable, provided extensions are reasoned and reviewable. Some member states may, in time, adjust their legislation to reflect this controlled flexibility.

Conclusion

The Imballaggi Piemontesi Srl ruling confirms that an antitrust deadline may mark not an end but a turning point. For authorities, it preserves the space needed to pursue complex and evolving investigations. For companies, it raises the stakes of procedural vigilance. In an enforcement landscape in which timelines can stretch, only those who record the practical consequences of delay with care and precision will be well-placed to defend their position when the matter finally comes to judgment.

This informational piece, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin or its lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.