EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-265/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13: United Parcel Service v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0265

62017CN0265

May 16, 2017
With Google you find a lot.
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 231/21

(Case C-265/17 P)

(2017/C 231/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold, A. Biolan, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment;

refer the proceedings back to the General Court, and

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1)The Judgment errs in finding that the Commission was required to disclose to UPS the final version of its price concentration model before adopting the Decision.

2)Even if the Commission’s failure to disclose the final version of the price concentration model to UPS before the adoption of the Decision could breach UPS’s rights of defence, the Judgment erred in its characterisation of the evidential character of the price concentration model and, consequently, in the legal test applied in determining that the Decision was to be annulled.

3)Even if a breach of UPS’s rights of defence could arise in the circumstances, the Judgment erred in failing to address the Commission’s submissions that UPS’s plea was ineffective and that UPS could understand the price concentration model.

4)In any event, the findings made in the Judgment could not justify the annulment of the Decision.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia