- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-231/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Price-fixing — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates — Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA — Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0231
62014CA0231
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
7.9.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 294/12
(Case C-231/14 P) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates - Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA - Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned))
(2015/C 294/15)
Language of the case: English
Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and R. Burton, Solicitor)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.