Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

European Union
Gencor Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-102/96)
Judgment
Substance
I —The pleas alleging infringement of…
Findings of the Court
2. Compatibility of the contested deci…
90

Gencor Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-102/96)

law://eu/cjeu/1996/t-102-96/para_90@2026-11-14

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges
Case: T-102/96 · ECLI:EU:T:1999:65
Decided: 25 Mar 1999
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Gencor Ltd
Defendant: Commission ofthe European Communities
Rapporteur: García-Valdecasas
Bench: 4 judges
B. Vesterdorf, R. García-Valdecasas, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61996TJ0102

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

25 Mar 1999Reading

Judgment of 25 Mar 1999

90Application of the Regulation is justified under public international law when it is foreseeable that a proposed concentration will have an immediate and substantial effect in the Community.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Connections

Cited by 23: Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (T-64/20); NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH v European Commission (T-58/20); Iliad Italia SpA v European Commission (T-692/20); Tele Columbus AG v European Commission (T-69/20); Wieland-Werke AG v European Commission (T-251/19); Japan Airlines Co. Ltd v European Commission (T-340/17)2 provisions; Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v European Commission (T-343/17); SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v European Commission (T-324/17)2 provisions; Cargolux Airlines International SA v European Commission (T-334/17); British Airways plc v European Commission (T-341/17); Martinair Holland NV v European Commission (T-323/17); Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV v European Commission (T-325/17); Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Others v European Commission (T-342/17); Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd v European Commission (T-350/17); Air France-KLM v European Commission (T-337/17); Société Air France v European Commission (T-338/17); Air Canada v European Commission (T-326/17); INC SpA and Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA v European Commission (T-24/19); HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission (T-380/17); Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission (T-772/15); Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission (T-8/16); Unichem Laboratories Ltd v European Commission (T-705/14); Viscas Corp. v European Commission (T-422/14)
Cites 18: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)8 provisions; A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission of the European Communities (89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85, 125/85, 126/85, 127/85, 128/85, 129/85); French Republic and Société commerciale des potasses et de l'azote (SCPA) and Entreprise minière et chimique (EMC) v Commission of the European Communities (C-68/94, C-30/95); SpA Simmenthal v Commission of the European Communities (92/78); AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities (C-62/86); AKZO Chemie BV and AKZO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (53/85); Asociación Profesional de Empresarios de Pesca Comunitarios (Apesco) v Commission of the European Communities (207/86); Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (11/76); Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd and Merck Sharp & Dohme International Services BV v Primecrown Ltd, Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Bharat Himatlal Mehta and Necessity Supplies Ltd and Beecham Group plc v Europharm of Worthing Ltd (C-267/95, C-268/95); Società Italiana Vetro SpA, Fabbrica Pisana SpA and PPG Vernante Pennitalia SpA v Commission of the European Communities (T-68/89, T-77/89, T-78/89); Scottish Football Association v Commission of the European Communities (T-46/92); Decision 1997/26 (Only the English text is authentic); 94/449/EC: Commission Decision of 14 December 1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 - Kali- Salz/MdK/Treuhand) (Text with EEA relevance); Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings; United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities (27/76); Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (6/72); Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities (85/76); Commission of the European Communities v Lisrestal - Organização Gestão de Restaurantes Colectivos Ldª, Gabinete Técnico de Informática Ldª (GTI), Lisnico - Serviço Marítimo Internacional Ldª, Rebocalis - Rebocagem e Assistência Marítima Ldª and Gaslimpo - Sociedade de Desgasificação de Navios SA (C-32/95 P)