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
Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (C-42/21 P)
The appeal
The fourth ground of appeal
Findings of the Court
151

Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (C-42/21 P)

Judgment of 12 Jan 2023law://eu/cjeu/2021/c-42-21/para_151@2026-11-10

151In that regard, it is important to recall that, in accordance with Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, the General Court has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fines set by the Commission.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-42/21 P · ECLI:EU:C:2023:12
Decided: 12 Jan 2023
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: K. Jürimäe
Advocate General: A. Rantos
Bench: 5 judges
K. Jürimäe, M. Safjan, N. Piçarra, N. Jääskinen, M. Gavalec
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62021CJ0042

Topics

Dominant position

History · 1 version

12 Jan 2023Reading

Connections

Cited by 6: Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission (C-738/22 P); « Lukoil Bulgaria » EOOD and « Lukoil Neftohim Burgas » AD v Komisia za zashtita na konkurentsiata (C-245/24)2 provisions; Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission (C-48/22 P); Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD and Others v European Commission (T-136/19)2 provisions; QB v European Commission (C-88/22 P); Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. v European Commission (C-163/22)
Cites 17: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 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); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (C-152/19 P); Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (C-209/10); Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification; Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl v European Commission (C-601/18 P); European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp (C-434/13 P); Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (C-7/97); Slovak Telekom, a.s. v European Commission (T-851/14); Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (C-42/21); Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (T-814/17); E.ON Energie AG v European Commission (C-89/11 P); Pometon SpA v European Commission (C-440/19 P); Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (C-52/09); Slovak Telekom, a.s. v European Commission (C-165/19 P); Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (C-7/97); Telefónica SA and Telefónica de España SAU v European Commission (C-295/12 P)