- 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-306/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Schwenk Zement v Commission (Competition — Administrative proceeding — Decision to request information — Necessity of the information requested — Duty to state reasons — Proportionality)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TA0306
62011TA0306
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
5.5.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 135/32
(Case T-306/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))
2014/C 135/40
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Raible, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)
Re:
Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP 39520 — cement and related products) as regards the 11th series of questions in the questionnaire constituting Annex I thereto;
2.Orders Schwenk Zement KG to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Schwenk Zement KG;
3.Dismisses the remainder of the action.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.