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 Verhuizingen Coppens NV (C-441/11 P)
Judgment
The appeal
Findings of the Court
36

European Commission v Verhuizingen Coppens NV (C-441/11 P)

Judgment of 6 Dec 2012law://eu/cjeu/2011/c-441-11/para_36@2026-11-11

36As the Advocate General observed in point 25 of her Opinion, the first paragraph of Article 264 TFEU is to be interpreted, however, as meaning that the measure contested by the action for annulment must be declared to be void only to the extent that the action is well founded.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-441/11 P · ECLI:EU:C:2012:778
Decided: 6 Dec 2012
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62008TJ0008
Applicant: European Commission
Defendant: Verhuizingen Coppens NV
Rapporteur: E. Jarašiūnas
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, J.-C. Bonichot, C. Toader, A. Prechal, E. Jarašiūnas
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62011CJ0441

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

6 Dec 2012Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: G. M. Piccoli Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-8/08)
Cited by 14: Air France-KLM v European Commission (C-370/22 P)4 provisions; Société Air France SA v European Commission (C-369/22 P)4 provisions; SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v European Commission (C-403/22 P); Cargolux Airlines International SA v European Commission (C-401/22 P); LATAM Airlines Group SA and Lan Cargo SA v European Commission (C-375/22 P)5 provisions; Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd v European Commission (C-379/22 P); UBS Group AG, venant aux droits de Credit Suisse Group AG and Others v European Commission (T-84/22); UBS Group AG and Others v European Commission (T-441/21); Crédit agricole SA and Others v European Commission (T-386/21)2 provisions; Servier SAS and Others v European Commission (C-201/19 P); Scania AB and Others v European Commission (C-251/22 P); Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v European Commission (T-113/17); Nichicon Corporation v European Commission (C-757/21); Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation v European Commission (C-759/21)
Cites 13: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)6 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); Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Commission of the European Communities (C-105/04 P); Aalborg Portland A/S, Irish Cement Ltd, Ciments français SA, Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, Buzzi Unicem SpA and Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P, C-219/00 P); NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (322/81); French Republic v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (C-244/03); Sarrió SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-291/98 P); Commission of the European Communities v Département du Loiret and Scott SA (C-295/07); Commission of the European Communities v Anic Partecipazioni SpA (C-49/92 P); Franz Völk v S.P.R.L. Ets J. Vervaecke (5/69); ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS) (C-283/05); Verhuizingen Coppens NV v European Commission (T-210/08); Dansk Rørindustri A/S, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH and Others, KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, LR af 1998 A/S, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, LR af 1998 (Deutschland) GmbH and ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P, C-206/02 P, C-207/02 P, C-208/02 P, C-213/02 P)