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
European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd (C-441/07 P)
Judgment
The appeal
First ground of appeal: the General Co…
First part of the first ground of appe…
–Findings of the Court
42

European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd (C-441/07 P)

Judgment of 29 Jun 2010law://eu/cjeu/2007/c-441-07/para_42@2026-11-10

42Judicial review for its part relates solely to whether the Commission’s assessment is manifestly incorrect.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Grand Chamber
Case: C-441/07 P · ECLI:EU:C:2010:377
Decided: 29 Jun 2010
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62006TJ0170
Applicant: European Commission
Defendants: the other party to the proceedings being:; Alrosa Company Ltd
Rapporteur: K. Schiemann
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 11 judges
V. Skouris, A. Tizzano, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Levits, C. Toader, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann, M. Ilešič, U. Lõhmus
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62007CJ0441

Topics

Dominant position

History · 1 version

29 Jun 2010Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Alrosa Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-170/06)
Cited by 17: ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (C-253/23); Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy and Others v Council of the European Union (C-696/23 P); Iliad Italia SpA v European Commission (T-692/20); Orlen S.A., v European Commission (C-255/22 P)3 provisions; International Skating Union v European Commission (C-124/21 P); thyssenkrupp AG v European Commission (T-584/19); Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission (T-616/18)2 provisions; Google LLC, formerly Google Inc. and Alphabet, Inc. v European Commission (T-612/17); Groupe Canal + v European Commission (C-132/19 P); Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (T-814/17); Groupe Canal + v European Commission (T-873/16); Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission (T-76/14)2 provisions; Italian Republic v European Commission (T-527/13); Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v European Commission (T-457/09)2 provisions; ABN Amro Group NV v European Commission (T-319/11)2 provisions; InnoLux Corp. v European Commission (T-91/11)2 provisions; (publication by extracts) LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd v European Commission (T-128/11)2 provisions
Cites 4: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance); Alrosa Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-170/06); 2006/520/EC: Commission Decision of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers) (notified under document number C(2006) 521) (Text with EEA relevance)