- 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
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012.#Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) v European Commission.#Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10% of turnover — Cooperation — Distortion of evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons.#Case C‑181/11 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2012:455
62011CJ0181
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
1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 56, 57, 96, 97)
2. Appeals — Grounds — Distortion of national law relied on as evidence — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 59)
3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Application to the appeal procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 60, 61)
4. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see para. 62)
5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see para. 64)
6. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53(1)) (see paras 71, 101)
7. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Distinction between the final amount and the intermediate amount of the fine — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)(2)) (see paras 80-85)
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased.
Operative part
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;
2.Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;
3.Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.