Judgment_paragraph 37 · CROSS Zlín, a.s. v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (C-303/22)

37It should also be borne in mind that neither the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor the Rules of Procedure make provision for the interested parties to respond to an Advocate General’s Opinion. As a consequence, the fact that a party to the main proceedings or an interested party disagrees with the Advocate General’s Opinion, irrespective of the questions examined in the Opinion, cannot in itself constitute grounds justifying the reopening of the oral procedure (judgments of 28 May 2020, Interseroh, C‑654/18, EU:C:2020:398, paragraph 33, and of 9 November 2023, Všeobecná úverová banka, C‑598/21, EU:C:2023:845, paragraph 50).

CROSS Zlín, a.s. v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (C-303/22)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections