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 Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA (C-103/11 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The first plea, claiming error of law…
Findings of the Court
64

European Commission v Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA (C-103/11 P)

Judgment of 18 Apr 2013law://eu/cjeu/2011/c-103-11/para_64@2026-11-10

64In doing that, those Courts cannot base their reasoning simply on the rules alleged by the parties.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-103/11 P · ECLI:EU:C:2013:245
Decided: 18 Apr 2013
Procedure: Action for damages
Ruled invalid: 62007TJ0019
Applicant: European Commission
Rapporteur: A. Tizzano
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
A. Tizzano, M. Ilešič, E. Levits, J.-J. Kasel, M. Berger
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62011CJ0103

Topics

Approximation of laws Law governing the institutions

History · 1 version

18 Apr 2013Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA v European Commission (T-19/07)
Cited by 7: DM and DN v Mission d'assistance de l'Union européenne pour une gestion intégrée des frontières en Libye (EUBAM Libya) (T-198/24); Robert Stockdale v Council of the European Union and Others (T-776/20); JF v EUCAP Somalia (T-194/20)2 provisions; European Union Satellite Centre v KF (C-14/19 P); VG, successor in title to MS v European Commission (C-19/18 P)4 provisions; d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission (T-106/13)2 provisions; Kalliopi Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union (C-220/13)
Cites 9: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA and PPHU ‘ADAX’/Ryszard Adamiak v Christianapol sp. z o.o (C-116/11); Françoise-Eléonor Hanssens-Ensch v European Community (C-377/09); European Community, represented by the Commission of the European Communities v First NV and Franex NV (C-275/00); Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (C-243/05 P); Industrie- en Handelsonderneming Vreugdenhil BV v Commission of the European Communities (C-282/90); European Commission v Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA (C-103/11); Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA v European Commission (T-19/07); Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities (C-214/08)