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 Kingdom of Sweden (C-270/11)
Judgment
The lump sum payment
Findings of the Court
55

European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (C-270/11)

Judgment of 30 May 2013law://eu/cjeu/2011/c-270-11/para_55@2026-11-11

55However, the fact that the Kingdom of Sweden has never failed to comply with any judgment previously given by the Court under Article 258 TFEU should be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-270/11 · ECLI:EU:C:2013:339
Decided: 30 May 2013
Procedure: Infringement action
Applicant: European Commission
Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
Rapporteur: U. Lõhmus
Advocate General: N. Jääskinen
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus, M. Safjan, A. Prechal
Language: Swedish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62011CJ0270

Topics

Law governing the institutions

History · 1 version

30 May 2013Reading

Connections

Cited by 12: European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (C-658/19)2 provisions; European Commission v Romania (C-549/18); European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (C-213/23); European Commission v Republic of Croatia (C-315/23)2 provisions; European Commission v Hungary (C-123/22)2 provisions; European Commission v Romania (C-109/22)2 provisions; European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-692/20)2 provisions; European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (C-842/19); HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission (T-380/17); European Commission v Ireland (C-550/18); European Commission v Portuguese Republic (C-76/13); Beco Metallteile-Handels GmbH v European Commission (T-81/12)2 provisions
Cites 10: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC; European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (C-610/10); European Commission v Hellenic Republic (C-407/09); Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (C-121/07); Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (C-369/07); European Commission v Ireland (C-374/11); European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (C-185/09); Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (C-301/06)