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-427/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — CEAHR v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0427

62008TN0427

September 24, 2008
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

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/44

(Case T-427/08)

(2008/C 313/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Confédération Européenne des Associations d'Horlogers-Réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Mathijsen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008 by which the Commission rejected, for lack of Community interest, the applicant's complaint regarding the alleged violations of Article 81 and 82 EC in connection with the watch manufacturers' refusal to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers [Case C(2008) 3600].

In support of its claims the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the Treaty by deforming the applicant's complaint and thus, using materially incorrect facts in its decision.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission committed errors in law and infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by deciding that the watch manufacturers complained of didn't held a dominant position and that their refusal to sell spare parts outside the selective distribution system didn't constitute an abuse of their dominant position. The applicant also contests the Commission's conclusions that there were agreements or concerted practices between watch manufacturers.

The applicant contends that the Commission misused its power by using the argument of lack of Community interest after a four-year investigation of the applicant's complaint.

Moreover, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to state reasons thereby infringing Article 253 EC.

Finally, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission infringed the principle of impartiality in investigating its complaint.

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