This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the remedies practice the European Commission has adopted based on articles 7 and 9 of regulation 1/03. Using article 7 as a normative benchmark, it shows that most of the criticism directed at the Commission's article 9 decisions and the Alrosa judgment of the CJEU is not justified, as critics tend to overstate both the rigor of article 7 and the laxity of article 9. Remaining inconsistencies between the commitment practice and the standards for infringement decisions can, it is submitted, be justified by the consensual nature of commitment decisions and their underlying goal of procedural economy. Moreover, it is suggested that too little importance is generally assigned to the beneficial effect that commitments bring about by providing precise and enforceable obligations without sacrificing the concerned undertakings' freedom to choose how to resolve the infringement. Adopting a case-oriented approach, this study provides valuable insights for academics and practitioners alike.