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
United Parcel Service, Inc. v European Commission (T-194/13)
Judgment
Law
2. The merits of the first part of the…
221

United Parcel Service, Inc. v European Commission (T-194/13)

Judgment of 7 Mar 2017law://eu/cjeu/2013/t-194-13/para_221@2026-11-11

221Accordingly, it must be concluded that the Commission infringed the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to communicate the final version of its econometric model to the applicant.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fourth Chamber
Case: T-194/13 · ECLI:EU:T:2017:144
Decided: 7 Mar 2017
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: I. Labucka
Bench: 3 judges
M. Prek, I. Labucka, V. Kreuschitz
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62013TJ0194

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

7 Mar 2017Reading

Connections

Cited by 14: Bloom v European Commission (T-1049/23); UBS Group AG, venant aux droits de Credit Suisse Group AG and Others v European Commission (T-84/22); Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-336/20); UBS Group AG and Others v European Commission (T-441/21); Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale v Single Resolution Board (T-407/22); MegaFon OAO v Council of the European Union (T-193/23); Volkskreditbank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-348/21); Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-347/21); United Parcel Service, Inc. v European Commission (C-297/22 P)4 provisions; PNB Banka AS and Others v Single Resolution Board (T-732/19); PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank (T-230/20); Wieland-Werke AG v European Commission (T-251/19); ASL Aviation Holdings DAC and ASL Airlines (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission (T-540/18)9 provisions; United Parcel Service, Inc. v European Commission (T-834/17)
Cites 6: MasterCard Inc. and Others v European Commission (C-382/12 P); Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) (C-413/06); Solvay SA v European Commission (C-109/10 P); Deutsche Börse AG v European Commission (T-175/12); General Electric Company v Commission of the European Communities (T-210/01); 2013/431/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 12 August 2013 allowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the active substances benalaxyl-M and valifenalate (notified under document C(2013) 5184) Text with EEA relevance