Order of the Court of 25 March 1996.
Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and others v Commission of the European Communities.
C-137/95 P • 61995CO0137 • ECLI:EU:C:1996:130
- 95 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
«(Appeal – Competition – Decisions of associations of undertakings – Exemption – Appraisal of the gravity of infringements – Appeal clearly unfounded)»
1.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment which was not necessary to support the operative part thereof – Plea ineffectual
2.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity and duration of infringements – Consideration of the conditions for the imposition of fines by the Commission – Excluded ( Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), second subpara. )
3.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Conditions for the imposition of fines by the Commission – Infringement committed intentionally or negligently – Alternative conditions ( Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), first subpara. )
ORDER OF THE COURT 25 March 1996 (1)
((Appeal – Competition – Decisions of associations of undertakings – Exemption – Appraisal of the gravity of infringements – Appeal clearly unfounded))
In Case C-137/95 P,
appellants,
APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case T-29/92
the other party to the proceedings being:
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.N. Kakouris, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: M. B. Elmer,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General, makes the following
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress (first condition) while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit (second condition), and which does not:
(third condition); (b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question (fourth condition).
The first plea
The first part
The second part
The third part
The second plea in law
The first two parts
The third part
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
Luxembourg, 25 March 1996.
R. Grass
G.C. Rodríguez-Iglesias
Registrar
President
Related cases
Select a keyword to display the most cited other cases