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

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

European Union
Kesko Oy v Commission of the European Communities (T-22/97)
Judgment
The admissibility and object of the ac…
Findings of the Court
55

Kesko Oy v Commission of the European Communities (T-22/97)

Judgment of 15 Dec 1999law://eu/cjeu/1997/t-22-97/para_55@2026-11-12

55As regards, first, the admissibility of the action, it must be recalled that, for the purposes of assessing a legal interest in bringing proceedings, the relevant date is that on which the action is commenced (Case 14/63 Forges de Clabecq v High Authority [1963] ECR 357, at 371).

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges
Case: T-22/97 · ECLI:EU:T:1999:327
Decided: 15 Dec 1999
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Kesko Oy
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: Bellamy
Bench: 4 judges
K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi, A.W.H. Meij
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61997TJ0022

Topics

Dominant position

History · 1 version

15 Dec 1999Reading

Connections

Cited by 12: Brasserie Nationale (anc. Brasseries Funck-Bricher et Bofferding) and Munhowen SA v European Commission (T-289/24); Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko v Council of the European Union (T-644/22)2 provisions; Mikhail Fridman and Others v Council of the European Union (T-635/22)2 provisions; Illumina, Inc. v European Commission (T-227/21)4 provisions; INC SpA and Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA v European Commission (T-24/19)2 provisions; Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV v Commission of the European Communities (T-282/02)2 provisions; MCI, Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (T-310/00)2 provisions; Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities (T-50/00)2 provisions; Mara Messina v Commission of the European Communities (T-76/02)2 provisions; Petrolessence SA and Société de gestion de restauration Routière SA (SG2R) v Commission of the European Communities (T-342/00); Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v Commission of the European Communities (T-395/94)2 provisions; Mitteldeutsche Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (T-9/98)2 provisions
Cites 19: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)6 provisions; Oleificio Borelli SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-97/91); BPB Industries Plc and British Gypsum Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-65/89); Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v Commission of the European Communities (C-48/96 P); Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and others v Commission of the European Communities (T-29/92); Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV v Commission of the European Communities (T-77/94); Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings; NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (322/81); Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Bräu AG (C-234/89); 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); Gøttrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA (C-250/92); Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (C-8/88); Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission of the European Communities (C-241/91 P, C-242/91 P); Société Technique Minière (L.T.M.) v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (M.B.U.) (56/65); Rendo NV, Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV and Regionaal Energiebedrijf Salland NV v Commission of the European Communities (C-19/93 P); Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren v Commission of the European Communities (8/72); Gencor Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-102/96); Forges de Clabecq SA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (14/63); Compagnie maritime belge transports SA and Compagnie maritime belge SA, Dafra-Lines A/S, Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co. and Nedlloyd Lijnen BV v Commission of the European Communities (T-24/93, T-25/93, T-26/93, T-28/93)