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
Mowi ASA v European Commission (C-10/18 P)
The appeal
The second ground of appeal
The second part
–Findings of the Court
111

Mowi ASA v European Commission (C-10/18 P)

Judgment of 4 Mar 2020law://eu/cjeu/2018/c-10-18/para_111@2026-11-10

111The General Court was therefore justified in holding that the Commission was entitled to impose two separate fines under Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of that regulation respectively.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-10/18 P · ECLI:EU:C:2020:149
Decided: 4 Mar 2020
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Mowi ASA
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: K. Jürimäe
Advocate General: E. Tanchev
Bench: 5 judges
M. Vilaras, S. Rodin, D. Šváby, K. Jürimäe, N. Piçarra
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62018CJ0010

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

4 Mar 2020Reading

Connections

Cited by 14: FZ AR SpA and SX Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Dipartimento del Tesoro, Comitato di Sicurezza Finanziaria and Others (C-428/24); M v Lietuvos bankas (C-671/23); Illumina Inc. and Grail LLC v European Commission (C-611/22 P); Altice Group Lux Sàrl v European Commission (C-746/21 P)4 provisions; EVH GmbH v European Commission (T-312/20); GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG v European Commission (T-319/20); Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH v European Commission (T-313/20); EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH v European Commission (T-317/20); TEAG Thüringer Energie AG v European Commission (T-315/20); Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo v European Commission (C-492/21); Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament (C-115/21 P); Canon Inc. v European Commission (T-609/19)5 provisions; Wieland-Werke AG v European Commission (T-251/19); Altice Europe NV v European Commission (T-425/18)5 provisions
Cites 17: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 april 2004 on takeover bids (Text with EEA relevance); The Queen, on the application of International Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04); Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (C-617/17); Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission (T-704/14); Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings; Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance); Transcatab SpA v European Commission (T-39/06); Coop de France bétail et viande and Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (C-101/07); Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (Text with EEA relevance); Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet (C-633/16); Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission (C-549/10 P); IBP Ltd and International Building Products France SA v European Commission (T-384/06); Hauptzollamt Bremen v J. E. Tyson Parketthandel GmbH hanse j (C-134/08); Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge v Beneo-Orafti SA (C-150/10); Electrabel SA v European Commission (C-84/13)