- 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-669/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Action for damages — Default interest — Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence — Lack of legal basis — Article 266 TFEU — Causal link)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0669
62014TA0669
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
27.6.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 232/12
(Case T-669/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Action for damages - Default interest - Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence - Lack of legal basis - Article 266 TFEU - Causal link))
(2016/C 232/15)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson and A. Johansson, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, L. Parpala and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 3 July 2014 in case COMP/38.354 (Industrial bags — Trioplast Industrier AB) and, secondly, for damages under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.