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 Deutsche Post AG and DHL International (C-148/09 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The first and third grounds of appeal
Findings of the Court
83

Kingdom of Belgium v Deutsche Post AG and DHL International (C-148/09 P)

Judgment of 22 Sept 2011law://eu/cjeu/2009/c-148-09/para_83@2026-11-12

83With regard to, secondly, the content of the contested decision, the General Court pointed out in particular that it revealed an inadequate examination of the contested measures.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-148/09 P · ECLI:EU:C:2011:603
Decided: 22 Sept 2011
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicants: Kingdom of Belgium; Deutsche Post AG; DHL International
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: E. Levits
Advocate General: N. Jääskinen
Bench: 5 judges
A. Tizzano, J.-J. Kasel, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits, M. Safjan
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62009CJ0148

Topics

History · 1 version

22 Sept 2011Reading

Connections

Cited by 16: European Commission v Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (C-57/19 P); Land Rheinland-Pfalz v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (C-466/21 P); Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10) and Others v European Commission (T-582/20); Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v European Commission (T-639/14 R); Dansk Erhverv v European Commission (T-47/19)2 provisions; Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission (T-218/18); Scor SE v European Commission (T-135/17); Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v European Commission (T-79/16); 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); Iliad and Others v European Commission (T-325/10); Orange, formerly France Télécom v European Commission (T-258/10); Colt Télécommunications France v European Commission (T-79/10); 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission (C-646/11); Télévision française 1 (TF1) and Others v European Commission (T-520/09)
Cites 6: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (C-176/06); European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (C-83/09 P); Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-431/07); Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty; Deutsche Post AG and DHL International v Commission of the European Communities (T-388/03)