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 T-38/05: Action brought on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62005TN0038

62005TN0038

January 22, 2005
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/43

(Case T-38/05)

(2005/C 82/76)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A., Madrid (Spain), represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Patricia Vidal Martínez, of the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.partially annul Article 3 of the Decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004, reducing the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión;

2.order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision at issue is the same as in Case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission (1).

The grounds put forward by the applicant are similar to those relied on in that case (infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003).

In particular, it is alleged that the Commission erred in taking into consideration the consolidated turnover of the group of undertakings headed by DIMON INC., in order to determine the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant. Furthermore, AGROEXPANSION only became part of that group in November 1997.

Moreover, the Commission failed to take account of the attenuating circumstance that the applicant ceased to engage in those practices as soon as it became aware of the Commission's measures of inspection.

* * *

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

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