- 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-90/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014 — 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Total turnover in the preceding business year)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CA0090
62013CA0090
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
7.7.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 212/8
(Case C-90/13 P) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Total turnover in the preceding business year))
2014/C 212/08
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (represented by: K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Vecchi and N. Khan, acting as Agents)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09 1. garantovaná v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel industry), concerning a cartel on the markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the EEA, involving price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Calculation of the fine — Upper limit of 10 % of turnover — Relevant turnover
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders 1. garantovaná a.s. to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.