CASE COMMENTS : ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENT – FINES – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Unlimited jurisdiction: The Court of Justice rejects the appeal and clarifies the conditions of exercise by the General Court of its unlimited jurisdiction (Quinn Barlo)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Appeal brought by Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Platics GmbH against the judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 (Case T-208/06, see this column, ConcurrencesNo 1-2012).), the Court of Justice of the European Union dismisses the three pleas in law raised in its support and, therefore, the appeal in its entirety. For the purposes of the present review, only the appellant's appeal, taken in its second and third pleas, will be considered. With regard to the second plea, the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)

Quotation

Cyril Sarrazin, Unlimited jurisdiction: The Court of Justice rejects the appeal and clarifies the conditions of exercise by the General Court of its unlimited jurisdiction (Quinn Barlo), 30 May 2013, Concurrences N° 3-2013, Art. N° 53523, p. 66

Visites 232

All reviews