- 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-117/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Postal services — Tariff system adopted by a universal service provider — Fine imposed by a national postal regulator — Fine imposed by a national competition authority — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Non bis in idem principle — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the non bis in idem principle — Duplication of proceedings and penalties — Conditions — Pursuit of an objective of general interest — Proportionality)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0117
62020CA0117
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
16.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 198/3
(Case C-117/20) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Postal services - Tariff system adopted by a universal service provider - Fine imposed by a national postal regulator - Fine imposed by a national competition authority - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Non bis in idem principle - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the non bis in idem principle - Duplication of proceedings and penalties - Conditions - Pursuit of an objective of general interest - Proportionality)
(2022/C 198/04)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: bpost SA
Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence
Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission
Operative part of the judgment
Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person from being fined for an infringement of EU competition law where, on the same facts, that person has already been the subject of a final decision following proceedings relating to an infringement of sectoral rules concerning the liberalisation of the relevant market, provided that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the two competent authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner within a proximate timeframe; and that the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.