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
Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-73/98)
Judgment
Law
The existence of serious difficulties
The evidence of serious difficulty tha…
Findings of the Court
94

Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-73/98)

law://eu/cjeu/1998/t-73-98/para_94@2026-11-14

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges
Case: T-73/98 · ECLI:EU:T:2001:94
Decided: 15 Mar 2001
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: Lindh
Bench: 4 judges
P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras, N.J. Forwood
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61998TJ0073

Topics

History · 1 version

15 Mar 2001Reading

Judgment of 15 Mar 2001

94In order to determine whether the time taken amounts to evidence of serious difficulties, it is appropriate to refer to the Commission's internal rules.

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

Connections

Cited by 21: Região Autónoma da Madeira v European Commission (T-131/21); Portuguese Republic v European Commission (T-95/21); Petra Flašker v European Commission (T-392/20); Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV v European Commission (T-648/19); ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S v European Commission (T-561/18)2 provisions; Achema AB and Lifosa AB v European Commission (T-300/19); Naviera Armas, SA v European Commission (T-108/16); Søndagsavisen A/S v European Commission (T-167/14); Trajektna luka Split d.d. v European Commission (T-57/15); Magic Mountain Kletterhallen GmbH and Others v European Commission (T-162/13); Hamr - Sport a.s. v European Commission (T-693/14); Secop GmbH v European Commission (T-79/14)2 provisions; Club Hotel Loutraki AE and Others v European Commission (T-58/13); Netherlands Maritime Technology Association, formerly Scheepsbouw Nederland v European Commission (T-140/13); Castelnou Energía, SL v European Commission (T-57/11)2 provisions; Ryanair Ltd v European Commission (T-512/11); Vtesse Networks Ltd v European Commission (T-362/10)2 provisions; Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV v European Commission (T-488/11); Orange, formerly France Télécom v European Commission (T-258/10); Colt Télécommunications France v European Commission (T-79/10); Iliad and Others v European Commission (T-325/10)
Cites 16: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (C-278/92, C-279/92, C-280/92); SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-46/97); Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Edition (SIDE) v Commission of the European Communities (T-49/93); BP Chemicals Limited v Commission of the European Communities (T-11/95); Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (84/82); Gestevision Telecinco SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-95/96); Ryanair Limited v Commission of the European Communities (T-140/95); I. Schroeder KG v the Federal Republic of Germany (40/72); Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (C-349/93); Commission of the European Communities v Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's France SARL (C-367/95 P); French Government v Commission of the European Communities (C-15/76, C-16/76); Matra SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-225/91); British Airways plc, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Air UK Ltd, Euralair international, TAT European Airlines SA and British Midland Airways Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-371/94, T-394/94); Steinike & Weinlig v Federal Republic of Germany (78/76); William Cook plc v Commission of the European Communities (C-198/91)