- 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-341/25, Sintexcal and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 May 2025 – Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Sintexcal SpA, Impresa Bacchi Srl, General Beton Triveneta SpA, Itinera SpA, Milano Serravalle – Milano Tangenziali SpA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0341
62025CN0341
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 series
—
C/2025/3876
21.7.2025
(Case C-341/25, Sintexcal and Others)
(C/2025/3876)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
Respondents: Sintexcal SpA, Impresa Bacchi Srl, General Beton Triveneta SpA, Itinera SpA, Milano Serravalle – Milano Tangenziali SpA
Questions referred
Does Article 101 TFEU preclude national legislation, such as that laid down in Article 14 of legge n. 689 (Law No 689) of 24 November 1981, which, for the purposes of exercising the powers to impose penalties, requires the Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato (the Italian Competition Authority) to notify the undertakings concerned of the decision initiating the investigation – which sets out, inter alia, the essential elements in relation to the alleged infringements – within the time limit of 90 days, or 360 days in the case of undertakings resident abroad, starting from the moment the Authority has knowledge of the infringement?
Must Article 101 TFEU and Directive (EU) 2019/1 (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation which provides for annulment as an automatic consequence of the breach of the reasonable time limit for initiating the investigation procedure, without it being necessary to establish that the rights of the defence have actually been infringed; or, in the alternative, that they preclude national legislation which, where there has been a breach of the reasonable time limit for initiating the investigation procedure, places an additional burden of proof on the Authority (and not on the undertakings) to demonstrate that the breach of that time limit actually infringed the rights of the defence?
(1) Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (OJ 2019 L 11, p. 3).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3876/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—