EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-613/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0613

62013CN0613

November 26, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/27

(Case C-613/13 P)

2014/C 52/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal insofar as it annuls article 1 of the contested Decision as regards the events in AFICS and the liability of Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec for them;

set aside in full point 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

if the Court of Justice gives final judgment, to dismiss the action for annulment also insofar as it concerns the events in AFICS and to reinstate the fines imposed on Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec; and, in any event,

to order the applicants at first instance (now other parts in the proceedings) bear the costs of this appeal, and, to the extent that the Court of Justice gives final judgment on the action for annulment, of such case as well.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground: failure to comply with duty to state reasons and the rules of evidence; the General Court failed to examine several relevant pieces of evidence and applied too high evidentiary requirements for those pieces of evidence that the General Court did examine.

Second ground: contradictory reasoning; the assessment of the evidence is in direct contradiction with that in three other judgments delivered the same day relating to the same decision and the same facts.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia