Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TA0054

Case T-54/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Goldfish and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes — Admissibility of evidence — Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence — Assessment of ability to pay — Unlimited jurisdiction)

OJ C 392, 24.10.2016, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/24


Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Goldfish and Others v Commission

(Case T-54/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes - Admissibility of evidence - Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence - Assessment of ability to pay - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2016/C 392/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp) and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, and subsequently by: P. Van Nuffel and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, secondly, for reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on those applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Goldfish BV, Heiploeg BV, Heiploeg Beheer BV and Heiploeg Holding BV to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


Top