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
C series
—
(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the extraction and supply of quartz sand - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to examine all the relevant elements of fact of law - Interest of the Union)
(C/2025/2525)
Language of the case: Dutch
Applicant: Ivo Swenters (Hasselt, Belgium) (represented by: J. Coninx, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Baumé and C. Zois, acting as Agents)
By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2023) 386 final of the Commission of 13 January 2023 rejecting his complaint concerning the infringement of Article 101 TFEU allegedly committed by SCR-Sibelco NV (‘Sibelco’), Cimenteries CBR Cementbedrijven NV, Grintbedrijf SBS NV, Kiezelgroeve Varenberg NV, Dragages Graviers et Travaux (Dragratra) NV, Sibelco Nederland BV, Van Nieuwpoort Groep BV, HeidelbergCement AG and Hülskens Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Case AT.40683 – Belgian Sand) and the infringement of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by Sibelco.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Ivo Swenters to pay the costs.
—
(1) OJ C 189, 30.5.2023.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2525/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—