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
Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-310/01)
Judgment
Law
Procedural irregularity
First plea, alleging infringement of A…
—Arguments of the parties
85

Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-310/01)

Judgment of 22 Oct 2002law://eu/cjeu/2001/t-310-01/para_85@2026-11-11

85The Commission claims that the plea alleging that the decision of 27 April 2001 is illegal is manifestly inadmissible, since the decision was not challenged within the period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment (Case C-178/95 Wiljo [1997] ECR I-585, paragraph 19).

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

Key facts

Court: General Court
Case: T-310/01 · ECLI:EU:T:2002:254
Decided: 22 Oct 2002
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Schneider Electric SA
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Bench: 2 judges
N.J. Forwood, H. Legal
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001TJ0310

Topics

Concentrations between undertakings

History · 1 version

22 Oct 2002Reading

Connections

Cited by 11: Bytedance Ltd v European Commission (T-077/23); Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. v European Commission (T-604/18)10 provisions; Deutsche Börse AG v European Commission (T-175/12); Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. v European Commission (T-272/12)2 provisions; Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission (T-471/11)2 provisions; (publication by extracts) LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd v European Commission (T-128/11); Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) v European Commission (T-406/08)2 provisions; Fluorsid SpA and Minmet financing Co. v European Commission (T-404/08)2 provisions; Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG v European Commission (T-405/08); MasterCard, Inc. and Others v European Commission (T-111/08)2 provisions; Transcatab SpA v European Commission (T-39/06)
Cites 9: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Compagnie générale maritime and Others v Commission of the European Communities (T-86/95); Wiljo NV v Belgische Staat (C-178/95); Council of the European Union v Court of Justice of the European Union (C-432/98 P, C-433/98 P); Coöperatieve Vereniging "Suiker Unie" UA and others v Commission of the European Communities (C-40/73, C-41/73, C-42/73, C-43/73, C-44/73, C-45/73, C-46/73, C-47/73, C-48/73, C-50/73, C-54/73, C-55/73, C-56/73, C-111/73, C-113/73, C-114/73); Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 of 1 March 1998 on the notifications, time limits and hearings provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (Text with EEA relevance); Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings; 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); Asteris AE and others and Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (97/86, 193/86, 99/86, 215/86)