Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 July 2013 *

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 July 2013 *"

Transcription

1 Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 July 2013 * (Appeal Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement International removal services market in Belgium Direct or indirect fixing of prices, market sharing and the manipulation of the procedure for the submission of tenders Unlawful conduct imputable to the entity controlling the shareholdings Definition of undertaking Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence Restriction of competition by object Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) Mitigating circumstances) In Case C-440/11 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 25 August 2011, European Commission, represented by A. Bouquet, S. Noë and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, the other parties to the proceedings being: appellant, Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje, established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), represented by D. Van hove, F. Wijckmans, S. De Keer and H. Burez, advocaten, Gosselin Group NV, THE COURT (Third Chamber), applicants at first instance, composed of M. Ilešič, President of the Chamber, E. Jarašiūnas (Rapporteur), A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader and C.G. Fernlund, Judges, Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 October 2012, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 29 November 2012, gives the following EN * Language of the case: Dutch. ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 1

2 Judgment 1 By its appeal, the European Commission seeks the partial annulment of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08 Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission [2011] ECR II-3639 ( the judgment under appeal ), by which that court annulled, in Case T-209/08, Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/ International Removal Services) ( the contested decision ), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 5810 final of 24 July 2009 ( the amending decision ), in so far as it concerned Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje ( Portielje ). Legal context 2 Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) provides that the burden of proving an infringement of Article 81(1) [EC] shall rest on the party or the authority alleging the infringement. 3 Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 states, inter alia, that [t]he Commission may by decision impose fines on undertakings and associations of undertakings. 4 The Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 81) ( the Guidelines on the effect on trade ) state, inter alia, at point 53 as follows: The Commission will hold the view that where an agreement by its very nature is capable of affecting trade between Member States, for example, because it concerns imports and exports or covers several Member States, there is a rebuttable positive presumption that such effects on trade are appreciable when the turnover of the parties in the products covered by the agreement exceeds 40 million euro. In the case of agreements that by their very nature are capable of affecting trade between Member States it can also often be presumed that such effects are appreciable when the market share of the parties exceeds the 5% threshold. However, this presumption does not apply where the agreement covers only part of a Member State 5 The Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2) ( the Guidelines on the method of setting fines ) provide, under the heading Adjustments to the basic amount, as follows: B. Mitigating circumstances 29. The basic amount may be reduced where the Commission finds that mitigating circumstances exist, such as: where the undertaking provides evidence that its involvement in the infringement is substantially limited and thus demonstrates that, during the period in which it was party to the offending agreement, it actually avoided applying it by adopting competitive conduct in the market: the mere fact that an undertaking participated in an infringement for a shorter duration than others will not be regarded as a mitigating circumstance since this will already be reflected in the basic amount; 2 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

3 where the anti-competitive conduct of the undertaking has been authorised or encouraged by public authorities or by legislation. Background to the dispute and the contested decision 6 The facts giving rise to the dispute and the contested decision, as set out in paragraphs 1 to 19 of the judgment under appeal, may be summarised as follows. 7 Gosselin Group NV ( Gosselin ) was founded in 1983 and has operated under that name since 20 December Since 1 January 2002, 92% of Gosselin s shares have been held by Portielje, the remaining 8% being held by Vivet en Gosselin NV, in which Portielje in turn has a 99.87% holding. Portielje is a foundation which does not engage in any commercial activity and brings together family shareholders in order to ensure unity of management. During the financial year ending 30 June 2006, Gosselin achieved a consolidated worldwide turnover of EUR and Portielje a consolidated worldwide turnover of EUR 0. 8 In the contested decision, the Commission found that the addressees of that decision, which included Portielje and Gosselin, had participated in a cartel in the international removal services sector in Belgium by fixing prices, sharing customers and manipulating the procedure for the submission of tenders and thereby committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC, or must be held liable for such an infringement, for part or the whole of the period from October 1984 to September The services concerned by the infringement include removals of goods, both for natural persons and for undertakings or public institutions, to or from Belgium. In view of the fact that the international removal companies in question are all located in Belgium and that the activities of the cartel took place there, Belgium was considered to be the geographic centre of the cartel. The combined turnover of the cartel members for those international removal services was estimated by the Commission at EUR 41 million for Since the size of the sector was estimated at approximately EUR 83 million, the combined market share held by the undertakings involved was therefore considered to account for approximately 50% of the sector concerned. 10 The Commission stated in the contested decision that one of the aims of the cartel was to establish and maintain high prices and to share the market, and the cartel itself took various forms: agreements on prices ( the agreement on prices ), agreements on sharing the market by means of a system of false quotes, known as cover quotes ( the agreement on cover quotes ) and agreements on a system of financial compensation, known as commissions, for rejected offers or for not quoting at all ( the agreement on commissions ). 11 In the contested decision, the Commission found that, between 1984 and the early 1990s, the cartel had operated inter alia on the basis of written price-fixing agreements, the commission and cover quote practices being introduced at the same time. According to that decision, the commissions practice was to be treated as the indirect fixing of prices for international removal services in Belgium, since the cartel members issued invoices to each other for commissions on rejected offers or offers not made, referring to fictitious services, and the amount represented by those commissions was, moreover, invoiced to the customers. ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 3

4 12 As regards cover quotes, the Commission stated in the contested decision that, through the submission of such quotes, the removal company which wanted the contract ensured that the customer paying for the removal received several quotes. To that end, that company indicated to its competitors the total price that they were to quote for the planned removal, which was higher than the price quoted by the company itself. Thus the system in operation was one of fictitious quotes submitted by companies which did not intend to carry out the removal. The Commission took the view that that practice constituted a manipulation of the tendering procedure to ensure that the price quoted for a removal was higher than it would have been in a competitive environment. 13 The Commission found in the contested decision that those arrangements were in place until 2003 and that those complex activities had the same object: price-fixing and market-sharing, and, thereby, the distortion of competition. 14 In the light of those factors, the Commission adopted the contested decision, Article 1 of which is worded as follows: By directly and indirectly fixing prices for international removal services in Belgium, sharing part of the market, and manipulating the procedure for the submission of tenders, the following undertakings have infringed Article 81(1) [EC] and Article 53(1) of the [Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3)] in the periods indicated: (c) [Gosselin] from 31 January 1992 until 18 September 2002; with [Portielje], from 1 January 2002 to 18 September 2002; 15 Consequently, in Article 2(e) of the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 4.5 million on Gosselin, of which Portielje was held jointly and severally liable for EUR That fine was calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the Guidelines on the method of setting fines. 16 On 24 July 2009, the Commission adopted the amending decision. By that decision, the Commission reduced by approximately EUR the value of Gosselin s sales. As that value had been used at the basis of the calculation of the fine imposed on Gosselin, the Commission reduced the fine to be imposed on it to EUR 3.28 million, of which Portielje was held jointly and severally liable for EUR The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal 17 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 4 June 2008, Portielje brought an action for annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it concerned Portielje, or, in the alternative, annulment of Article 2(e) of that decision, in so far as that provision concerned it, and, as a consequence, annulment of the fine imposed in Article 2(e). 18 By order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of 5 March 2010, Case T-209/08 was joined, for the purposes of the oral procedure and of the judgment, to Case T-208/08, brought by Gosselin against the contested decision. 4 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

5 19 In support of its action, Portielje relied on five pleas in law, the first two of which were specific to it and the remaining three corresponding, in essence, to the pleas raised by Gosselin in Case T-208/08. By the judgment under appeal, the General Court granted the first two pleas relied on by Portielje. That court s decision was based inter alia on the following considerations. 20 After setting out its reasons at paragraphs 37 to 50 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court granted Portielje s first plea, by which it submitted that it is not an undertaking within the meaning of Community competition law and that, as a consequence, there could be no parent company/subsidiary relationship between itself and Gosselin. The General Court found in particular, at paragraphs 39 to 42 of the judgment under appeal, that the parent company of an undertaking which has infringed Article 81 EC cannot be penalised by a decision implementing that provision, if it is not itself an undertaking. It considered in that connection that reliance on the concept of economic unity cannot compensate for the fact that the parent company is not an undertaking and that it is necessary to distinguish the concept of an undertaking from that of imputation of the conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company. 21 As to whether it is possible to classify Portielje as an undertaking, after stating that it was established that Portielje was not directly engaged in any economic activity, the General Court found, at paragraphs 47 and 48 of the judgment under appeal, in reliance on Case C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others [2006] ECR I-289, that the mere fact of holding shares, even controlling shareholdings was insufficient to characterise as economic an indirect activity of the entity holding those shares and that, in order to ascertain whether such an economic activity is carried on, it is necessary to examine whether that entity involved itself directly or indirectly in the management of its subsidiary. 22 The General Court stated in that regard, at paragraphs 48 to 50 of the judgment under appeal, that the question whether Portielje had involved itself directly or indirectly in the management of Gosselin is different from the question whether it exercised decisive influence over it. The General Court pointed out that no presumption has been established concerning the possibility of classifying an entity as an undertaking and that, as a consequence, the burden of proving that Portielje was in fact involved in the management of Gosselin lay with the Commission. Since the Commission had adduced no evidence of such involvement, the General Court concluded that the Commission had failed to establish that Portielje was an undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC. 23 At paragraphs 51 to 59 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court analysed the second plea put forward by Portielje, [f]or the sake of completeness, on the basis even if Portielje were an undertaking. It concluded that Portielje had succeeded in rebutting the presumption relating to the exercise of decisive influence established, inter alia, by Case C-97/08 P Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I-8237 and consequently upheld the second plea. 24 In its analysis, the General Court stated, at paragraphs 54 to 56 of the judgment under appeal that: (i) it was necessary to rule out the claim that Portielje exerted decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary on the ground alone that both Portielje s first decision in writing and the first formal meeting of its board of directors occurred after the end of the infringement; (ii) the only way Portielje could influence Gosselin s policy was to use its voting rights at the general meeting of that company s shareholders but no general meeting had been held during the period from 1 January 2002 to 18 September 2002; and (iii) the members of Gosselin s board of directors were appointed before Portielje acquired Gosselin s shares as trustee, which shows, according to the General Court, that their presence on Gosselin s board of directors does not indicate influence on the part of Portielje. 25 Moreover, the General Court found, at paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, that it could not be accepted that the three persons who constituted Gosselin s board of directors, but who represented only half of Portielje s board of directors, controlled Gosselin not in their capacity as directors of that company but through the influence exerted by Portielje over Gosselin s general meeting. The General ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 5

6 Court observed in that regard, inter alia, that even if the three directors of Gosselin, who were among the owners of Portielje, did not act only as directors of Gosselin, it is more likely that they acted in their own interests. 26 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the General Court found, at paragraph 59 of the judgment under appeal, that it was necessary to annul the contested decision, as amended by the amending decision ( the contested decision as amended ), in so far as it concerned Portielje. Nevertheless, the General Court went on to analyse the three other pleas relied on by Portielje, since they had also been raised by Gosselin, and rejected them. Forms of order sought by the parties 27 By its appeal, the Commission asks the Court to set aside the judgment under appeal, to the extent that it annuls the contested decision as amended as regards Portielje, to dismiss Portielje s action for annulment and to order the latter to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. 28 Portielje contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. The appeal 29 The Commission puts forward two grounds of appeal, each alleging infringement of Article 81 EC. The first ground of appeal, concerning the scope ratione personae of Article 81 EC Arguments of the parties 30 The Commission claims that, at paragraphs 39 to 42 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of an undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC. Joint and several liability applies as between legal entities and arises as a result of the fact that such entities constitute an economic unit and, therefore, a single undertaking for the purpose of EU competition law. Thus, in order for it to be possible for an infringement of Article 81 EC to be imputed to a specific legal person, the Commission is required to establish that that person belonged to the undertaking which committed the infringement. However, it is not necessarily required to show that that person itself has the legal capacity of an undertaking. The Commission refers in that regard to Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission. 31 As a consequence, according to the Commission, the General Court focused its analysis on an irrelevant issue, namely whether Portielje could be classified as an undertaking as such, and thereby applied an incorrect legal test. It should in fact have considered whether the Commission was justified in claiming that Portielje belonged to the undertaking which committed the infringement. 32 The Commission submits as an alternative argument that the conclusions drawn by the General Court from its incorrect premiss also amount to an error in law. The approach adopted by the General Court at paragraphs 48 and 49 of the judgment under appeal is not only at odds with the case-law of the Court of Justice but also has the effect of requiring the Commission to demonstrate twice and by two different means that Portielje actually exerted control over Gosselin. Due to that incorrect approach, the General Court erred in law in finding that, in order to hold Portielje jointly liable with Gosselin for the infringement at issue, the Commission could not simply rely on the presumption laid down by the case-law established in Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission but was required to show in 6 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

7 addition and beforehand, by means of hard evidence, that Portielje had involved itself directly or indirectly in the management of Gosselin. Moreover, the General Court rejected as irrelevant evidence which was, nevertheless, important and ruled out the application of the presumption based on the holding of shares in a manner that is incompatible with the principles established in Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission. 33 Portielje contends that the question whether it is an undertaking for the purpose of competition law is of fundamental importance for the application of Article 81 EC and that the Commission bears the burden of proving that that condition is fulfilled, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003. By applying the evidentiary presumption established in Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission to a situation in which it had not yet been established that Portielje is an undertaking, the Commission failed properly to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon it. 34 As regards the Commission s principal argument, Portielje submits that, while the substantive provisions of competition law embrace an economic concept of an undertaking, the provisions concerning penalties must necessarily apply to a legal entity and, as a consequence, embrace the legal concept of an undertaking. Accordingly, the question whether it is possible to impute an infringement must be distinguished from the question whether an entity may be held liable for it. Thus, before an infringement can be imputed to a parent company, it must be possible for that company to be liable for the infringement in law. That will be the case only where it is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, either on account of its own economic activities or the economic activities of the companies in which has a controlling interest. However, in the latter case, it will be necessary for it actually to exercise control over those companies by involving itself, directly or indirectly, in their management. It is common ground that that was not the case with Portielje during the period of the infringement at issue. 35 As regards the argument put forward by the Commission in the alternative, Portielje considers that the requirement of proof of the exercise of decisive influence which stems from the presumption established inter alia by Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission cannot be applied to the doctrine concerning the circumstances in which an entity may be held liable for an infringement of Article 81 EC. Acceptance of the presumption that decisive influence is exerted as a valid criterion for demonstrating that an entity is to be regarded as an undertaking might, according to Portielje, have significant repercussions, in particular as regards entities engaged in both economic activities and activities entailing the exercise of the powers of a public authority. Findings of the Court 36 First, it should be observed that EU competition law refers to the activities of undertakings (Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, paragraph 59, and Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 54) and that the concept of an undertaking encompasses any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed (Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, paragraph 112, and Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 54). That concept must be understood as denoting an economic unit for the purposes of the subject-matter of the agreement in question, even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal (Case 170/83 Hydrotherm Gerätebau [1984] ECR 2999, paragraph 11, and Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 56). 37 When such an entity infringes competition rules, it falls, according to the principle of personal responsibility, to that entity to answer for that infringement (see, to that effect, Case C-49/92 P Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125, paragraph 145, and Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 56). ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 7

8 38 With regard to the circumstances in which a legal person who is not responsible for the infringement may, nevertheless, be subject to penalties, it is the Court s established case-law that the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company in particular where, although having a separate legal personality, the subsidiary does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company, having regard in particular to the economic, organisational and legal links between those two legal entities (Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited, and Joined Cases C-628/10 P and C-14/11 P Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission and Commission v Alliance One International and Others [2012] ECR, paragraph 43). 39 In such a situation, since the parent company and its subsidiary form a single economic unit and therefore form a single undertaking for the purposes of Article 81 EC, the Commission may address a decision imposing fines on the parent company, without having to establish the personal involvement of the latter in the infringement (see Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 59, Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission and Commission v Alliance One International and Others, paragraph 44). 40 The Court has made clear that, in the particular case of a parent company having a 100% or virtually 100% shareholding in a subsidiary which has infringed EU rules on competition, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company does in fact exercise decisive influence over its subsidiary ( the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence ) (jcase C-508/11 P ENI v Commission [2013] ECR, paragraph 47; see also, to that effect, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited; Case C-521/09 P Elf Aquitaine v Commission [2011] ECR I-8947, paragraphs 56 and 63; and Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission and Commission v Alliance One International and Others, paragraph 46). 41 In those circumstances, it is sufficient for the Commission to prove that the entire capital, or virtually the entire capital, of a subsidiary is held by the parent company in order for it to be presumed that the parent exercises a decisive influence over the commercial policy of the subsidiary. The Commission will then be able to regard the parent company as jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary, unless the parent company, which has the burden of rebutting that presumption, adduces sufficient evidence to show that its subsidiary acts independently on the market (see, to that effect, Akzo Novel and Others v Commission, paragraph 61; Elf Aquitaine v Commission, paragraphs 57 and 63; Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission, paragraph 47; and ENI v Commission, paragraph 47). 42 That case-law is based on the premiss that liability may be imputed to a legal entity for the conduct of another legal entity where the latter does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market. Consequently, the fact that the entity holding all or virtually all the capital of another undertaking or all or virtually all of that entity s shareholdings ( the holding entity ) is constituted in the legal form of a foundation rather than a company is irrelevant. 43 It follows, as observed by the Advocate General at points 36 and 37 of her Opinion, that where the issue is whether an undertaking is to be penalised for infringement of competition law on the basis of Article 81 EC in conjunction with Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, it is also irrelevant whether each individual legal entity comprising the undertaking is itself economically active and therefore individually constitutes an undertaking as defined at paragraph 36 above. 44 The only decisive factor for the purpose of the penalty is that all the legal entities which are held jointly and severally liable, in whole or in part, for payment of the same fine together constitute with the entity whose direct involvement in the infringement has been established ( the author of the infringement ) a single undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC. According to the case-law cited at paragraphs 38 to 41 above, it is the actual exercise by the holding entity of decisive influence over the author of the infringement which is important in that regard. 8 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

9 45 It follows from the foregoing that the General Court erred in law in finding, first, at paragraph 39 of the judgment under appeal, that the concept of an undertaking must be considered separately from the concept that the conduct of the author of the infringement is to be imputed to its holding entity and, second, at paragraph 42 of that judgment, that the parent company of an undertaking which has infringed Article 81 EC cannot be penalised by a decision implementing Article 81 EC, if it is not an undertaking itself and by consequently verifying, at paragraphs 43 to 50 of that judgment, whether the Commission had established that Portielje, by itself, was an undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC. 46 The main argument of the Commission s first ground of appeal is therefore well founded and must be upheld, without it being necessary for the Court to rule on the argument put forward in the alternative. 47 However, that finding is not capable in itself of leading to the annulment of the judgment under appeal, in so far as it rules on the action brought before the General Court by Portielje. As is apparent from paragraphs 51 to 59 of that judgment, for the sake of completeness, the General Court based its decision on the finding that, in its view, Portielje had adduced evidence to show that it did not exert a decisive influence over Gosselin, or even that it was unable to exert such an influence, thus rebutting the presumption developed inter alia in Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission. It is therefore necessary also to examine the second ground of appeal. The second ground of appeal, concerning the rebuttal of the presumption of proof of exercise of decisive influence Arguments of the parties 48 The Commission submits that the General Court s findings at paragraphs 51 to 59 of the judgment under appeal, to the effect that Portielje had adduced evidence to show that it did not exert decisive influence over Gosselin, or even that it was unable to exert such influence, are based on errors of law and/or manifest distortion of the clear sense of the evidence. 49 First, at paragraphs 56 and 57 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court manifestly distorted the clear sense of the evidence concerning the nature and extent of the personal links between Portielje and Gosselin. It stated that those links covered only half of the directors of Portielje, thus implying that they could not together determine Portielje s policy. However, it is apparent from recitals 46 and 446 of the contested decision and paragraphs 11 and 22 to 24 of Portielje s defence and paragraph 6 of its rejoinder as well as from Portielje s articles of association, which were submitted to the General Court, that those personal links concerned the three principal directors of Portielje, who, together, were in a position to determine that company s policy and comprised Gosselin s entire board of directors. 50 Second, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law by finding, at paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal, that, since Portielje did not take any formal management decision during the period of the infringement in question, it could not have exerted decisive influence over the conduct of Gosselin. The Commission accepts that the presumption of the actual exercise of decisive influence may be rebutted by evidence which shows that the subsidiary acted independently. However, the General Court introduced a rule to the effect that it is impossible for decisive influence to be exercised where the legal person exercising total control has not adopted any formal management decision. That amounts to a considerable restriction of the scope of that presumption, for which no basis may be found in case-law and which is incorrect, especially where there are significant personal links between the legal persons concerned. The Commission observes in that connection that the case-law established by Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission is based on economic reality and does not impose any formal requirement for the exercise of decisive influence. ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 9

10 51 Third, the Commission maintains that paragraphs 55 to 57 of the judgment under appeal are also vitiated by errors of law. Paragraph 55 is based on the erroneous premiss that decisive influence may be exercised only where the formal requirements of company law are complied with, namely, in the present case, at the general meeting of Gosselin s shareholders. That assumption disregards the personal links between Gosselin and Portielje and discloses an excessively formalistic approach at odds with the functional nature of the economic concept of an undertaking. 52 With regard in particular to personal links, it is not possible, on the basis of any one of the three factors identified by the General Court at paragraphs 56 of the judgment under appeal, to conclude that Portielje did not constitute an economic unit with Gosselin. The Commission points out that those personal links concerned persons who, together, formed the entire board of directors of Gosselin and at the same time accounted for the majority of the votes on the board of directors of Portielje. Similarly, the considerations set out at paragraph 57 of the judgment are vitiated by an error of law and do not alter the conclusion that Gosselin may be deemed to have complied with Portielje s wishes. 53 The Commission submits, in conclusion, that the Court has before it all the information necessary to give a definitive ruling on the dispute and dismiss the action brought by Portielje before the General Court. 54 Portielje contends that it did in fact rebut the presumption established in Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission. 55 With regard to the actual exercise of decisive influence, Portielje considers that, since there was no meeting of its board of directors during the period of the infringement at issue, no general meeting of its shareholders during that period and no influence on the composition of the board of directors of Gosselin, it has succeeded in demonstrating that it had, as a matter of fact, no decisive influence over Gosselin. The Commission s argument cannot be accepted. First, the effect of that argument would be to render the presumption irrebuttable, which is incompatible with, inter alia, its right to due legal process. Second, that argument is at odds with the fundamental principles of company law and the law governing legal persons. A legal entity such as a foundation exists only by virtue of its statutory bodies. 56 Portielje is of the view that personal links are decisive only where they are indicative of the fact that it is possible for the parent company to influence the policy of its subsidiary. That would be the case where the parent company has appointed directors to the board of its subsidiary in order that they might exert influence there. That was not done in this instance. Moreover, Portielje was not established for the purpose of exerting any kind of control over Gosselin. 57 Moreover, the position adopted by the Commission is at odds with two fundamental principles of company law, under which Portielje cannot be held liable for the conduct of three of its directors which had no connection with any body within the company. Thus, first, the directors of a company do not have any powers on an individual basis. Gosselin and Portielje act only through their individual organs and their respective boards of directors alone, acting as a collegiate body, have general powers of administration. Second, directors can use their powers only within the limits of the authority conferred on them and only in the interests of the company, misuse of power generally entailing the sanction of annulment. Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable to take the view that the three Gosselin directors acted only in their capacity as directors of that company, not as representatives of Portielje. 10 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

11 Findings of the Court 58 First, it should be noted that it is apparent from the analysis of the first ground of appeal that the General Court was incorrect to hold that the Commission was not entitled to apply the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence for the purpose of establishing that, as a result of such influence, Portielje and Gosselin formed, during the period from 1 January 2002 to 18 September 2002, a single undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC. The only question before the Court for the purpose of the first ground of appeal is therefore whether the General Court erred in law in finding that Portielje adduced evidence capable of rebutting that presumption. 59 The question whether the General Court has taken the right legal criteria as the basis for its appraisal of the facts and the evidence is a question of law, which is amenable to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (see, to that effect, Case C-109/10 P Solvay v Commission [2011] ECR I-10329, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited). That is precisely the question put before the Court by the Commission in the second and third parts of its second ground of appeal, concerning paragraph 54 and paragraphs 55 to 57 respectively of the judgment under appeal. 60 As is apparent from the analysis of the first ground of appeal, in order to establish whether the author of the infringement decides independently upon its own conduct on the market, account must be taken of all the relevant factors relating to the economic, organisational and legal links which tie that author to its holding entity, which may vary from case to case and cannot therefore be set out in an exhaustive list (see, to that effect, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraphs 73 and 74; Elf Aquitaine v Commission, paragraph 58; and Alliance One International and Standard Commercial Tobacco v Commission and Commission v Alliance One International and Others, paragraph 45). 61 In the present case, the General Court stated at paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal that the issue of Gosselin s certificates in the foundation was recorded only on 11 December 2002, that Article 5.2 of Portielje s articles of association also permit decisions to be taken in writing and, according to Portielje which, according to the General Court, was not contradicted in that regard by the Commission such a case had arisen only once before the meeting of 5 November 2004, namely on 10 March 2003 in order to prepare the 2002 annual report. The General Court concluded from this that it must be held that Portielje had acted in accordance with its articles of association and that both the written procedure of 10 March 2003 and the first formal meeting of 5 November 2004 were held after the end of the infringement. It concluded, also at paragraph 54, as follows: [t]hat Portielje exerted a decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary is therefore ruled out on that ground alone. 62 Nevertheless, the General Court added, first of all, at paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, that as Portielje s sole activity consisted in exercising the voting rights linked to the shares in question at the general meeting of Gosselin s shareholders, [t]he only way Portielje could influence Gosselin s policy was to use those voting rights at that company s general meeting. It pointed out, however, that it had been established that, during the period of the infringement, namely from 1 January 2002 to 18 September 2002, no meeting of Gosselin s shareholders was held. Next, at paragraph 56 of the judgment, it stated that, during that period, Portielje did not alter the composition of Gosselin s board of directors, observing in that connection that [t]he members of Gosselin s board of directors were already directors of that company before Portielje acquired Gosselin s shares as trustee and that [t]hat time sequence shows that their presence on the board of directors does not indicate influence on the part of Portielje. 63 Lastly, at paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that it was necessary to reject the argument that the three persons who constituted Gosselin s board of directors, but who represented only half of Portielje s board of directors, controlled Gosselin not in their capacity as directors of the company but through the influence exerted by Portielje over Gosselin s general meeting and expressed the view that the fact that the board members are partly the same cannot ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 11

12 mean that all the undertakings in which the three members of Gosselin s board of directors are also represented in that capacity are therefore to be regarded as parent companies of Gosselin. It also stated at paragraph 57 that, in the present case, Gosselin s three directors were among the owners of Portielje, which was only an instrument for exercising ownership rights and that [a]ccordingly, even if those three persons did not act only as directors of Gosselin, it is more likely that they acted in their own interests. 64 In the light of the foregoing, the General Court concluded, at paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, that Portielje has adduced evidence to show that it did not exert a decisive influence over Gosselin, or even that it was unable to exert such an influence and that Portielje had thus succeeded in rebutting the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence established inter alia by Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission. 65 It is apparent from the foregoing, first, that the General Court considered, at paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal, that the fact that the holding entity did not adopt any formal management decision during the period for which it is held jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine is sufficient in itself to rebut the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence. It thus took the view that decisive influence may be exerted over the author of the infringement by the holding entity only where that entity adopts management decisions which comply with the formal requirements of company law. 66 In so deciding, the General Court erred in law. It is clear from the Court s settled case-law cited at paragraph 60 above that, in order to establish whether the author of the infringement decides independently upon its conduct on the market, it is necessary for account to be taken of all the relevant factors relating to the economic, organisational and legal links which tie that author to its holding entity and, therefore, of economic reality. The mere fact that the holding entity did not adopt any management decision in a manner consistent with the formal requirements of company law will not therefore suffice for that purpose. 67 Second, the General Court s analysis at paragraphs 55 to 57 of the judgment under appeal is vitiated by the same error of law. It is apparent from the matters set out at paragraphs 62 and 63 above that the General Court found that the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence had been rebutted purely on the basis of an analysis conducted by reference to company law and did not, before reaching that conclusion, take account of all the relevant factors relating to the economic, organisational and legal links which tie Portielje to Gosselin. In particular, while, at paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court would appear to consider the personal links that exist between Portielje and Gosselin, it is none the less apparent from the wording of that paragraph that that court examined those links simply from a company law perspective. There is therefore nothing in the reasoning adopted by the General Court at paragraphs 55 to 57 or indeed other paragraphs of its judgment to indicate that it took account of other factors as the basis for its conclusion that Portielje had succeeded in rebutting that presumption by establishing that Gosselin determined its policy independently during the period in question. 68 In so doing, the General Court also failed to have regard to the case-law cited at paragraph 60 above, in particular, as observed by the Advocate General at point 74 of her Opinion, the fact that a finding that the author of the infringement and its holding entity form an economic unit does not necessarily presuppose the adoption of formal decisions by statutory organs and that, on the contrary, that unit may also have an informal basis, consisting inter alia in personal links between the legal entities comprising such an economic unit. 69 The Court therefore finds that the second and third part of the second ground of appeal are well founded, without there being any need to examine the first part, by which the Commission alleges distortion of the clear sense of the evidence. 12 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

13 70 That finding is not affected by Portielje s claim that an approach requiring account to be taken of other factors than those merely pertaining to company law would have the effect of rendering the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence irrebuttable. 71 According to the Court s case-law, a presumption remains within acceptable limits so long as it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is possible to adduce evidence to the contrary and the rights of the defence are safeguarded. The fact that it is difficult to adduce the necessary evidence to the contrary in order to rebut the presumption or the mere fact that an entity does not, in a given case, produce evidence capable of rebutting a presumption does not, in itself, mean that that presumption cannot in fact be rebutted, especially where, as is the case with the presumption at issue, the entities against which the presumption operates are those best placed to seek that evidence within their own sphere of activity (Elf Aquitaine v Commission, paragraphs 62, 66 and 70). 72 No infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, may therefore be established. 73 Since the grounds of appeal are therefore well founded, they must be upheld and paragraphs 4 and 6 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court annulled the contested decision as amended, in so far as it concerned Portielje, and ordered the Commission to pay the costs in Case T-209/08, set aside. The action before the General Court 74 In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the appeal is well founded, the Court may, if the decision of the General Court is set aside, give final judgment in the matter where the state of the proceedings so permits. The Court considers that to be the position in the present case. 75 As is apparent from paragraph 19 above, Portielje relied on five pleas in law before the General Court, the first by way of main argument and the remaining four as arguments put forward in the alternative, claiming that it can incur liability for the infringement committed by Gosselin only if the latter itself infringed Article 81 EC. The first plea in law 76 By the first plea in support of its action, Portielje submits that, since it did not engage in any economic activity, it cannot be classified as an undertaking for the purpose of Article 81(1) EC or Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. As a consequence, the rules of EU competition law cannot be applied to it and the Commission could not, therefore, have held it liable for the infringement committed by Gosselin without itself acting in breach of those provisions. 77 It is sufficient to observe in that regard that it is apparent from the analysis of the first ground of appeal that the first plea in law before the General Court is unfounded. The second plea in law 78 By this plea, Portielje maintains that it demonstrated that it exerted no decisive influence over the commercial or strategic policy of Gosselin. By taking the opposite view in the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/ The Commission takes the view that this plea is unfounded. ECLI:EU:C:2013:514 13

14 80 First, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the contested decision, between 1 January 2002 and 18 September 2002 Portielje controlled virtually all Gosselin s share capital and, as a consequence, the Commission was entitled to presume, as is clear from the analysis of the first ground of appeal, that Portielje actually exercised decisive influence over Gosselin s commercial policy during that period and that Portielje and Gosselin thus formed, during that period, a single undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC. The onus was therefore on Portielje, in order to rebut that presumption, to adduce any evidence capable of proving that Gosselin acted independently on the market during that period. 81 In the present case, Portielje relied before the General Court, first, on the fact that its board of directors met for the first time only after the end of the infringement. Second, it stated that its only activity consisted in exercising the voting rights linked to the shares in question at the general meeting of Gosselin s shareholders, whereas, under Belgian company law, it is not the general meeting of the shareholders but the board of directors of the company which is responsible for the management of the company and, in any event, no meeting of Gosselin s shareholders was held during the period concerned. Third, Portielje had no influence over the composition of Gosselin s board of directors, since that had already been established before 1 January 2002 and its composition was not altered during the period concerned. Portielje infers from those considerations that it was in, practical terms, impossible for it to have exerted any influence whatsoever over Gosselin. 82 In its reply, Portielje adds that: (i) the issue of certificates in the foundation was registered only on 11 December 2002; (ii) of the six persons constituting its board of directors, only half also sat on Gosselin s board of directors; (iii) only Portielje s board of directors, not its directors acting outside the bounds of any statutory organ, has management powers; and (iv) its first decision was in written form and also after the end of the infringement. 83 It should be noted, in that regard, first, that, as is apparent from the analysis of the second ground of appeal, such factors are not in themselves, in principle and in the absence of special circumstances, sufficient to establish that the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence has been rebutted. 84 Next, the Commission stated at recital 451 of the contested decision that Portielje had confirmed that its object [is] to acquire bearer shares in return for the issue of bearer certificates, to manage the shares thus acquired, to exercise all rights attaching to the shares, such as the right to receive any remuneration in its entirety and to exercise voting rights, as well as to carry out any other activity having a connection, in the broadest sense of the term, with the foregoing or which may facilitate it and, at recital 452, that Portielje does not dispute that its objective is to ensure the uniform management of Gosselin and other subsidiaries. 85 Moreover, it is apparent from Gosselin s articles of association and recitals 46, 446 and 452 of the contested decision that, during the period in question, Portielje and Gosselin were managed by the same persons, which Portielje confirmed in its reply to the statement of objections. Indeed, the same three persons holding the majority of the voting rights within Portielje s board of directors, where, as a general rule, decisions are taken by simple majority, comprised at the same time the entire board of directors of Gosselin. 86 Lastly, apart from the formal evidence referred to at paragraphs 81 and 82 above, Portielje has failed to furnish any concrete evidence capable of demonstrating that, notwithstanding the conflict of interests arising in particular as a result of the existence of those particularly strong personal links and the objective pursued by Portielje, Gosselin acted independently on the market during the period in question. 87 It follows from the foregoing that the second plea relied on before the General Court cannot succeed. 14 ECLI:EU:C:2013:514

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 26 September 2013 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 26 September 2013 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 26 September 2013 (*) (Appeal Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Market for chloroprene rubber Price-fixing and market-sharing Infringement

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 1 February 2018 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 1 February 2018 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 1 February 2018 (*) (Appeal Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Article 101 TFEU Price fixing International air freight forwarding services Pricing

More information

JUDGMENT OF CASE T-15/02. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 15 March 2006*

JUDGMENT OF CASE T-15/02. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 15 March 2006* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 15 March 2006* In Case T-15/02, BASF AG, established in Ludwigshafen (Germany), represented by N. Levy, J. Temple-Lang, Solicitors, R. O Donoghue,

More information

APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 27 May, 29 May and 1 June 2015, respectively,

APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 27 May, 29 May and 1 June 2015, respectively, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 26 January 2017 (*) (Appeal Dumping Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia Extension

More information

APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 27 May, 29 May and 1 June 2015, respectively,

APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 27 May, 29 May and 1 June 2015, respectively, Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 26 January 2017 (*) (Appeal Dumping Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and

More information

Private Equity Companies and Parental Liability Appeal Court Hands Down Judgement in the Dutch Flour Cartel Pieter van Osch *

Private Equity Companies and Parental Liability Appeal Court Hands Down Judgement in the Dutch Flour Cartel Pieter van Osch * Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2017 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1of5 National and International Developments Private Equity Companies and Parental Liability Appeal Court Hands Down Judgement

More information

JUDGMENT OF CASE C-105/04 P. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 September 2006 * Table of contents

JUDGMENT OF CASE C-105/04 P. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 September 2006 * Table of contents JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 September 2006 * Table of contents Facts I - 8771 The action before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal I - 8774 Forms of order sought by

More information

TECHNISCHE UNIE v COMMISSION. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 September 2006 * Table of contents

TECHNISCHE UNIE v COMMISSION. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 September 2006 * Table of contents TECHNISCHE UNIE v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 September 2006 * Table of contents Facts I - 8878 The action before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal I - 8881

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 16 December 2015 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 16 December 2015 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 16 December 2015 (*) (Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices European airfreight market Agreements and concerted practices in respect of

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 1 February 2007 * APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 24 June 2005,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 1 February 2007 * APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 24 June 2005, JUDGMENT OF 1. 2. 2007 CASE C-266/05 P JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 1 February 2007 * In Case C-266/05 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 24 June 2005,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 11 May 2017 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 11 May 2017 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 11 May 2017 * (Appeal Directive 2010/30/EU Indication of energy consumption by labelling and standard product information Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 Energy

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 September 2007 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 September 2007 * LAND OBERÖSTERREICH AND AUSTRIA v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 September 2007 * In Joined Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P, APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 12 December 2007 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 12 December 2007 * BASF AND UCB v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 12 December 2007 * In Joined Cases T-101/05 and T-111/05, BASF AG, established in Ludwigshafen (Germany), represented

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 16 December 1999 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 16 December 1999 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 16 December 1999 * In Case T-198/98, Micro Leader Business, a company incorporated under French law, established in Aulnay-sous-Bois, France, represented

More information

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. Page 1 of 10 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 21 October 2004 (1) (Appeal Community trade

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 October 2013 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 October 2013 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 October 2013 * (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations Articles 3 and 7(2) Freedom of choice of the parties Limits Mandatory

More information

ROSSI v OHIM. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006*

ROSSI v OHIM. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006* ROSSI v OHIM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006* In Case C-214/05 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 10 May 2005, Sergio Rossi SpA, established

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 25 January 2007 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 25 January 2007 * SUMITOMO METAL INDUSTRIES AND NIPPON STEEL v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 25 January 2007 * Table of contents I The contested decision I - 789 A The cartel I-789 B The duration of the

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 4 June 2015 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 4 June 2015 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 4 June 2015 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents Directive 2003/109/EC Article 5(2) and Article 11(1)

More information

JUDGMENT OF CASE C-519/04 P. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006*

JUDGMENT OF CASE C-519/04 P. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006* In Case C-519/04 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 22 December 2004, David Meca-Medina, residing in Barcelona

More information

ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 July 2001 *

ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 July 2001 * IRISH SUGAR V COMMISSION ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 July 2001 * In Case C-497/99 P, Irish Sugar plc, established in Carlów (Ireland), represented by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt, with an address

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 * THYSSĽN STAHL v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 * In Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg (Germany), represented by F. Montag, Rechtsanwalt, with an

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 27 November 2001 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 27 November 2001 * JUDGMENT OF 27. 11. 2001 CASE C-270/99 P JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 27 November 2001 * In Case C-270/99 P, Z, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 22 February 2005 * APPEAL under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 15 April 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 22 February 2005 * APPEAL under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 15 April 2002 JUDGMENT OF 22. 2. 2005 CASE C-141/02 Ρ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 22 February 2005 * In Case C-141/02 P, APPEAL under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 15 April

More information

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 1/8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 19 September 2002 (1) (Appeal - Community trade mark -

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 14 November 2017 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 14 November 2017 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 14 November 2017 * (Appeal Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices European airfreight market Commission decision concerning agreements and concerted

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 October 2013 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 October 2013 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 October 2013 (*) (Appeal Right of access to documents of the institutions Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Article 4(3), first subparagraph Protection of the institutions

More information

Case C-199/92 P. Hüls AG v Commission of the European Communities

Case C-199/92 P. Hüls AG v Commission of the European Communities Case C-199/92 P Hüls AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance Reopening of the oral procedure Commission's Rules of Procedure Procedure for

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 March 2016 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 March 2016 (*) 1 di 8 08/05/2018, 11:33 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 March 2016 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Directive 2004/38/EC Decision withdrawing residence authorisation Principle of respect

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 19 September 2006 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 19 September 2006 * I-21 GERMANY AND ARCOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 19 September 2006 * In Joined Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04, REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 7 June 2011 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 7 June 2011 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 7 June 2011 (*) (Access to documents Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Audit report on the parliamentary assistance allowance Refusal of access Exception relating

More information

ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 5 May 2009 (*)

ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 5 May 2009 (*) Page 1 of 10 ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 5 May 2009 (*) (Appeal Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 Consultation of Regional Advisory Councils concerning measures governing access to waters and resources

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 28 April 2017 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 28 April 2017 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 28 April 2017 * (Access to documents Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Documents relating to a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations Documents

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 20 December 2017 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 20 December 2017 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 20 December 2017 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data Directive 95/46/EC

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 September 2016 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 September 2016 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 September 2016 * (REACH Fee for registration of a substance Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises Error in declaration

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 June 2002 * Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. Fierstra, acting as Agent,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 June 2002 * Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. Fierstra, acting as Agent, JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 2002 CASE C-382/99 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 June 2002 * In Case C-382/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. Fierstra, acting as Agent, applicant, v Commission

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 3 December 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 3 December 2003 * VOLKSWAGEN v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 3 December 2003 * In Case T-208/01, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold, lawyer,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 April 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 April 2003 * JUDGMENT OF 10. 4. 2003 JOINED CASES C-20/01 AND C-28/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 April 2003 * In Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01, Commission of the European Communities, represented by

More information

Roundtable on Safe Harbours and Legal Presumptions in Competition Law - Note by the European Union

Roundtable on Safe Harbours and Legal Presumptions in Competition Law - Note by the European Union Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DAF/COMP/WD(2017)64 English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE 30 November 2017 Roundtable on Safe

More information

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 17 September Case C-441/07 P. Commission of the European Communities v Alrosa Company Ltd.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 17 September Case C-441/07 P. Commission of the European Communities v Alrosa Company Ltd. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 17 September 2009 1 Case C-441/07 P Commission of the European Communities v Alrosa Company Ltd. (Appeal Competition Abuse of a dominant position (Article

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber, Extended Composition) 20 February 2001 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber, Extended Composition) 20 February 2001 * JUDGMENT OF 20. 2. 2001 CASE T-112/98 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber, Extended Composition) 20 February 2001 * In Case T-112/98, Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, established in Mülheim

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*) (Coordination of social security systems Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 15 September 2005 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 15 September 2005 * JUDGMENT OF 15. 9. 2005 CASE C-37/03 P JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 15 September 2005 * In Case C-37/03 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*) (Social policy Directive 96/34/EC Framework agreement on parental leave Clauses 1 and 2.4 Part-time parental leave Dismissal of a worker without

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 14 December 2000 (1) (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 2815/98 - Marketing

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 14 December 2000 (1) (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 2815/98 - Marketing Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. standards for olive oil) In Case C-99/99, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 14 December

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 October 2012 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 October 2012 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 October 2012 * (Directive 2003/109/EC Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents Scope Article 3(2)(e) Residence based on a

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 * In Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, having its registered office in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Ledesma Bartret and J. Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 1 July 2008 (*) (Appeals Access to documents of the institutions Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Legal opinion)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 1 July 2008 (*) (Appeals Access to documents of the institutions Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Legal opinion) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 1 July 2008 (*) (Appeals Access to documents of the institutions Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Legal opinion) In Joined Cases C 39/05 P and C 52/05 P, TWO APPEALS under

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 20 September 2011 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 20 September 2011 (*) O conteúdo deste arquivo provém originalmente do site na internet da Corte de Justiça da União Europeia e estava armazenado sob o seguinte endereço no dia 20 de setembro de 2011:- http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&submit=rechercher&numaff=t-

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 12 December 2013 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 12 December 2013 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 12 December 2013 (*) (Social policy Directive 1999/70/EC Framework agreement on fixed-term work Principle of non-discrimination Employment conditions National legislation

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 12 February 2015 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 12 February 2015 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 12 February 2015 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Consumer protection Directive 93/13/EEC Article 7 Mortgage loan agreement Arbitration clause

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 January 2001*

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 January 2001* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 January 2001* In Case C-361/98, Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by I.M. Braguglia and P.G. Ferri, avvocati dello Stato, with an address for

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 21 April 2005 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 21 April 2005 * JUDGMENT OF 21. 4. 2005 CASE T-28/03 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 21 April 2005 * In Case T-28/03, Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, established in Hamburg (Germany),

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 20 March 2002 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 20 March 2002 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 20 March 2002 * In Case T-28/99, Sigma Tecnologie di rivestimento Sri, established in Lonato (Italy), represented by A. Pappalardo, M. Pappalardo

More information

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 17 February

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 17 February OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 17 February 2005 1 1. This case essentially raises two questions, which relate to the delegation of powers within the European Central Bank ('the ECB'). The

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 26 June 2012 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 26 June 2012 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 26 June 2012 * (Appeal Common organisation of the markets Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States Regulation (EC)

More information

Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 4 October 2007 (*) (Appeal Community trade mark

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 February 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 February 2003 * SPAIN v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 February 2003 * In Case C-409/00, Kingdom of Spain, represented by M. López-Monís Gallego, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

More information

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikoinonion Ellados AE

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikoinonion Ellados AE Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikoinonion Ellados AE Reference for a preliminary ruling: Eirinodikeio Athinon - Greece Social policy - Male

More information

Reports of Cases. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 22 June HX v. Council of the European Union

Reports of Cases. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 22 June HX v. Council of the European Union Reports of Cases OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 22 June 2017 1 Case C-423/16 P HX v Council of the European Union (Appeal Common foreign and security policy Restrictive measures against

More information

Judgment of the Court of Justice, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, Case C-263/02 P (1 April 2004)

Judgment of the Court of Justice, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, Case C-263/02 P (1 April 2004) Judgment of the Court of Justice, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, Case C-263/02 P (1 April 2004) Caption: In its judgment of 1 April 2004, in Case C-263/02 P, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, the Court of Justice points

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber) 20 June 2012 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber) 20 June 2012 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber) 20 June 2012 * (Civil service Open competition Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the assessment

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) 16 May 2018 *

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) 16 May 2018 * JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) 16 May 2018 * (Action for annulment State aid Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal

More information

Commission of the European Communities, represented by O. Beynet and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by O. Beynet and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 2004 - CASE T-313/02 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 30 September 2004 * In Case T-313/02, David Meca-Medina, residing at Barcelona (Spain), Igor Majcen, residing

More information

Case T-67/01. JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities

Case T-67/01. JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities (Competition Article 81 EC Distribution agreements) Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 13 January 2004 II-56 Summary

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 November 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 November 2003 * REGIONE SICILIANA v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 November 2003 * In Case T-190/00, Regione Siciliana, represented by F. Quadri, avvocato dello

More information

HERBOSCH KIERE. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 26 January 2006*

HERBOSCH KIERE. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 26 January 2006* HERBOSCH KIERE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 26 January 2006* In Case C-2/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 29 April 2004 * Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 29 April 2004 * Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt, HENKEL v OHIM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 29 April 2004 * In Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 14 January 2004 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 14 January 2004 * JUDGMENT OF 14. 1. 2004 CASE T-109/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 14 January 2004 * In Case T-109/01, Fleuren Compost BV, established in Middelharnis

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 27 September 2006 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 27 September 2006 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 27 September 2006 * In Case T-59/02, Archer Daniels Midland Co., established in Decatur, Illinois (United States), represented by C.O. Lenz, lawyer,

More information

Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P. Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission of the European Communities

Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P. Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission of the European Communities Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal Competition District heating pipes (pre-insulated

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 September 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 September 2003 * KIK v OHIM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 September 2003 * In Case C-361/01 P, Christina Kik, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, advocaaten, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant,

More information

JUDGMENT OF CASE C-361/04 P. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 January 2006*

JUDGMENT OF CASE C-361/04 P. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 January 2006* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 January 2006* In Case C-361/04 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 18 August 2004, Claude Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris

More information

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 11 November

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 11 November OPINION OF MR LÉGER JOINED CASES C-21/03 AND C-34/03 OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 11 November 2004 1 1. Does the fact that a person has been involved in the preparatory work for a public

More information

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 28 June 2004 (1) (Appeal Regulation (EC) No 40/94

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 10 September 2015 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 10 September 2015 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 10 September 2015 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Judicial cooperation in civil matters Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 9 October 2002 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 9 October 2002 * KWS SAAT v OHIM (SHADE OF ORANGE) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 9 October 2002 * In Case T-173/00, KWS Saat AG, established in Einbeck (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger,

More information

Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 January 2006 (*) (Appeal Community trade mark

More information

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 18 April 2002 *

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 18 April 2002 * ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 18 April 2002 * In Case T-238/00, International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO), whose headquarters is in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 30 May 2013 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 30 May 2013 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 30 May 2013 (*) (Area of freedom, security and justice Directive 2008/115/EC Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

More information

ANNEX III: FORM RS. (RS = reasoned submission pursuant to Article 4(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

ANNEX III: FORM RS. (RS = reasoned submission pursuant to Article 4(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) ANNEX III: FORM RS (RS = reasoned submission pursuant to Article 4(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) FORM RS RELATING TO REASONED SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 4(4) AND 4(5) OF REGULATION

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 22 October 2002 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 22 October 2002 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 22 October 2002 * In Case T-77/02, Schneider Electric SA, established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), represented by A. Winckler and É. de La Serre,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) 17 September 2003 (1) (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Access to documents - Nondisclosure of a document originating from a

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 November 1997'

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 November 1997' COMMISSION AND FRANCE v LADBROKE RACING JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 November 1997' In Joined Cases C-359/95 P and C-379/95 P, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Francisco Enrique Gonzalez

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 11 December 1996*

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 11 December 1996* VAN MEGEN SPORTS v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 11 December 1996* In Case T-49/95, Van Megen Sports Group BV, formerly Van Megen Tennis BV, a company incorporated

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 18 September 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 18 September 2003 * VOLKSWAGEN v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 18 September 2003 * In Case C-338/00 P, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, with an

More information

PUBLIC COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION. Brusels,7November /1/13 REV1. InterinstitutionalFile: 2012/0011(COD) LIMITE

PUBLIC COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION. Brusels,7November /1/13 REV1. InterinstitutionalFile: 2012/0011(COD) LIMITE ConseilUE COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION Brusels,7November2013 InterinstitutionalFile: 2012/0011(COD) PUBLIC 14863/1/13 REV1 LIMITE DATAPROTECT145 JAI899 MI881 DRS187 DAPIX128 FREMP150 COMIX561 CODEC2286 NOTE

More information

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium),

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium), ORDER OF 28. 11. 2005 JOINED CASES T-236/04 AND T-241/04 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * In Joined Cases T-236/04 and T-241/04, European Environmental Bureau (EEB),

More information

The Role of the Hearing Officer in Competition Proceedings before the European Commission

The Role of the Hearing Officer in Competition Proceedings before the European Commission Wouter P.J. Wils, 2012 - all rights reserved. The Role of the Hearing Officer in Competition Proceedings before the European Commission Wouter P.J. Wils* forthcoming in World Competition, Vol. 35, No.

More information

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium),

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium), ORDER OF 28. 11. 2005 CASE T-94/04 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * In Case T-94/04, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium), Pesticides

More information

Influence of EU Law on National Procedural Rules

Influence of EU Law on National Procedural Rules Influence of EU Law on National Procedural Rules ETJN-Seminar on EU Institutional Law 16/17 June 2014, Ljubljana Speaker: Dr. Kathrin Petersen, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, Germany

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 12 April 2018 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 12 April 2018 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 12 April 2018 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Right to family reunification Directive 2003/86/EC Article 2(f) Definition of unaccompanied minor Article 10(3)(a)

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 April 1997 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 April 1997 * JUDGMENT OF 22. 4. 1997 CASE C-395/95 P JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 April 1997 * In Case C-395/95 P, Geotronics SA, a company incorporated under the laws of France, having its registered office at Logneš

More information

Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96

Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf (SCK) and Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven (FNK) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition Mobile

More information

B REGULATION No 17 First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. (OJ P 13, , p. 204)

B REGULATION No 17 First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. (OJ P 13, , p. 204) 1962R0017 EN 18.06.1999 002.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B REGULATION No 17 First Regulation implementing

More information

Burden of proof in Nullity and Cancellation Proceedings before the CPVO

Burden of proof in Nullity and Cancellation Proceedings before the CPVO Burden of proof in Nullity and Cancellation Proceedings before the CPVO Martin Ekvad* 1. Introduction The Basic Regulation does not contain explicit rules on burden of proof as regards proceedings before

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) 18 January 2017 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) 18 January 2017 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) 18 January 2017 (*) (State aid Rail transport Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) Public service contracts

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 March 2018 (*)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 March 2018 (*) JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 March 2018 (*) (Access to documents Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure Trilogues

More information

InfoCuria - Case-law of the Court of Justice ECLI:EU:C:2014:2193. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 11 September 2014 (*)

InfoCuria - Case-law of the Court of Justice ECLI:EU:C:2014:2193. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 11 September 2014 (*) InfoCuria - Case-law of the Court of Justice English (en) Home > Search form > List of results > Documents Start printing Language of document : English ECLI:EU:C:2014:2193 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 31 May 2006 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 31 May 2006 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 31 May 2006 * In Case T-354/99, Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV, established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), represented by P.

More information