- 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-26/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for industrial plastic sacks — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62006TA0026
62006TA0026
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 301/21
(Case T-26/06) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality)
2010/C 301/32
Language of the case: Swedish
Parties
Applicant: Trioplast Wittenheim SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: T. Petersson and O. Larsson, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and V. Bottka, subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Parpala and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for plastic industrial sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.dismisses the action;
2.orders Trioplast Witteheim SA to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.