Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CA0095

Case C-95/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — National legislation providing for a blocking minority of 20 % in respect of the adoption of certain decisions by the shareholders of Volkswagen AG)

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/7


Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-95/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - National legislation providing for a blocking minority of 20 % in respect of the adoption of certain decisions by the shareholders of Volkswagen AG)

2013/C 367/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Schwarze, J. Möller and J. Kemper, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply fully with the judgment of the Court of 23 October 2007 in Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany concerning the infringement of Article 56(1) EC — National legislation requiring, exceptionally, a majority of more than 80 % for the adoption of certain decisions by the shareholders of Volkswagen AG, thereby enabling the Land of Lower Saxony, which holds 20 % of those shares, to block those decisions — Calculation of penalties: payment of both a penalty payment and a lump sum

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


Top