- 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-617/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 3(1) — Application of national competition law — Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle of ne bis in idem — Whether applicable)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0617
62017CA0617
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 206/7
(Case C-617/17) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 82 EC - Abuse of a dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(1) - Application of national competition law - Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle of ne bis in idem - Whether applicable)
(2019/C 206/08)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A.
Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
Interveners: Edward Dętka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol Sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Śląskich, Ommer Polska Sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka spółka jawna w Gliwicach, Jastrzębskie Zakłady Remontowe Dźwigi Sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer-Polska Sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak, Bogdan Pietrzak Spółka jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, HTS Polska Sp. z o.o., Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski spółka jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz Sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec
Operative part of the judgment
The principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from fining an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of national competition law and for an infringement of Article 82 EC. In such a situation, the national competition authority must nevertheless ensure that the fines are proportionate to the nature of the infringement.
(*) Language of the case: Polish.