- 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 T-54/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Goldfish and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes — Admissibility of evidence — Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence — Assessment of ability to pay — Unlimited jurisdiction)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0054
62014TA0054
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
24.10.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 392/24
(Case T-54/14) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes - Admissibility of evidence - Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence - Assessment of ability to pay - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2016/C 392/28)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp) and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, and subsequently by: P. Van Nuffel and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, secondly, for reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on those applicants.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Goldfish BV, Heiploeg BV, Heiploeg Beheer BV and Heiploeg Holding BV to pay the costs.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.