- 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-308/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Consiliul Concurenţei v Whiteland Import Export SRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Penalties imposed by the national competition authority — Limitation period — Actions interrupting the limitation period — National legislation precluding, after the initiation of an investigation, the possibility that subsequent action for the purpose of proceedings or investigation may interrupt the new limitation period — Principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 25(3) — Scope — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 101 TFEU — Principle of effectiveness)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0308
62019CA0308
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 79/6
(Case C-308/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Penalties imposed by the national competition authority - Limitation period - Actions interrupting the limitation period - National legislation precluding, after the initiation of an investigation, the possibility that subsequent action for the purpose of proceedings or investigation may interrupt the new limitation period - Principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 25(3) - Scope - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 101 TFEU - Principle of effectiveness)
(2021/C 79/07)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Consiliul Concurenţei
Defendant: Whiteland Import Export SRL
Operative part of the judgment
1.EU law must be interpreted as meaning that national courts are not required to apply Article 25(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] to the time-barring of a national competition authority’s powers to impose penalties for infringements of EU competition law;
2.Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national courts having jurisdiction, according to which the decision to initiate an investigation, adopted by the national competition authority, concerning an infringement of EU competition law rules, is the final action of that authority which may have the effect of interrupting the limitation period relating to its power to impose penalties and excludes any subsequent action, for the purpose of proceedings or investigation, from interrupting that period, where it becomes apparent, having regard to all elements of the limitation rules at issue, that such an exclusion presents a systemic risk that acts constituting such infringements may go unpunished, which it is for the referring court to verify.
(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.