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
Rose Vision, SL v European Commission (C-224/15 P)
Judgment
The appeal
Findings of the Court
26

Rose Vision, SL v European Commission (C-224/15 P)

Judgment of 26 May 2016law://eu/cjeu/2015/c-224-15/para_26@2026-11-11

26The question whether the grounds of a judgment of the General Court are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal (see, inter alia, judgment of 19 December 2012 in Planet v Commission, C‑314/11 P, EU:C:2012:823, paragraph 63).

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-224/15 P · ECLI:EU:C:2016:358
Decided: 26 May 2016
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62013TJ0045
Applicant: Rose Vision SL
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: L. Bay Larsen
Advocate General: N. Wahl
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, D. Šváby, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan, M. Vilaras
Language: Spanish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015CJ0224

Topics

History · 1 version

26 May 2016Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Rose Vision, SL and Julián Seseña v European Commission and Others (T-45/13)
Cited by 17: Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Ryanair DAC and Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-457/23 P)2 provisions; Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy and Others v Council of the European Union (C-696/23 P)2 provisions; Société générale v European Central Bank (C-550/24); Crédit agricole SA and Others v European Central Bank (C-548/24); Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v European Central Bank (C-552/24); Republic of Slovenia v European Commission (C-447/22 P); Brunswick Bowling Products LLC v European Commission (C-694/21); European Union Intellectual Property Office v Guillaume Vincenti (C-653/20); Hellenic Republic v European Commission (C-107/20); Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB v European Commission (C-847/19); Generics (UK) Ltd v European Commission (C-588/16); Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission (C-378/16 P); Rose Vision, SL v European Commission (C-346/18); Equipolymers Srl and Others v Council of the European Union (C-363/17); L'Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-519/17); Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU v Research Executive Agency (REA) (T-706/14); Toni Klement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-642/15)
Cites 5: Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission (C-100/14); European Commission v Planet AE (C-314/11 P)2 provisions; Rose Vision, SL and Julián Seseña v European Commission and Others (T-45/13); British Telecommunications plc v European Commission (C-620/13); Isdin SA v Bial-Portela & Cª SA (C-597/12 P)