- 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 T-39/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62006TA0039
62006TA0039
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
19.11.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 340/15
(Case T-39/06) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)
2011/C 340/29
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Transcatab SpA (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Amato, subsequently by V. Di Bucci, and lastly by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyer)
Re:
APPLICATION (i) for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy); (ii) for a reduction in the fine imposed on Transcatab by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;
3.Orders Transcatab to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;
4.Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.