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
Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (C-5/01)
Judgment
Pleas in law in the action for annulme…
The third plea
52

Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (C-5/01)

Judgment of 12 Dec 2002law://eu/cjeu/2001/c-5-01/para_52@2026-11-10

52However, the nature of a time-limit must be determined with reference to the general context in which it occurs and with regard to its objective (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-357/88 Hopermann [1990] ECR I-1669, paragraph 12 and Case C-289/97 Eridania [2000] ECR I-5409, paragraph 26).

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice
Case: C-5/01 · ECLI:EU:C:2002:754
Decided: 12 Dec 2002
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: D.A.O. Edward
Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl
Bench: 4 judges
C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001CJ0005

Topics

History · 1 version

12 Dec 2002Reading

Connections

Cited by 17: Air Canada v European Commission (C-367/22 P); Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd v European Commission (C-379/22 P)2 provisions; ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S v European Commission (T-561/18); Athletic Club v European Commission (T-679/16); Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (T-538/11)2 provisions; French Republic v European Commission (T-135/12); Orange, anciennement France Télécom v European Commission (T-385/12); Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC v European Commission (T-71/10); Italian Republic v European Commission (C-458/09); AJD Tuna Ltd v Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd and Avukat Generali (C-221/09)2 provisions; Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co. Ltd and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-299/05); French Republic v Council of the European Union (C-479/07); Criminal proceedings against Fredrik Granberg (C-330/05)2 provisions; Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (C-43/04)2 provisions; Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte (ZEMAG) GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (T-111/01, T-133/01)2 provisions; Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-35/01)2 provisions; Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (C-276/02)2 provisions
Cites 24: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Falck SpA and Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-74/00 P, C-75/00 P); Banco de Crédito Industrial SA, now Banco Exterior de España SA v Ayuntamiento de Valencia (C-387/92); Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (C-75/97); De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (C-30/59); H. G. Oude Luttikhuis and others v Verenigde Coöperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA (C-399/93); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (C-83/99); Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (C-143/99); Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (C-480/98); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-173/73); Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutor) of the Kingdom of the v Jacobus Philippus van Tiggele (C-82/77); Ecotrade Srl v Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) (C-200/97); Firma Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts AG v Seebetriebsrat Bodo Ziesemer der Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts AG (C-72/91); Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (C-399/95); French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-251/97); Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (C-56/93); French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-241/94); Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Commission of the European Communities (C-158/00); Eridania Spa v Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (C-289/97); Epifanio Viscido, Mauro Scandella and Others and Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others v Ente Poste Italiane (C-52/97); Oberhausener Kraftfutterwerk Wilhelm Hopermann GmbH v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (C-357/88); 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); Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (C-310/99); République de Finlande v Commission of the European Communities (C-170/00)