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 62011CA0089

Case C-89/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission (Appeals — Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal — Burden of proof — Distortion of the evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Amount of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction — Principle of proportionality)

OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 4–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/4


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission

(Case C-89/11 P P) (1)

(Appeals - Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal - Burden of proof - Distortion of the evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Principle of proportionality)

2013/C 26/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: E.ON Energie AG (represented by: A. Röhling, F. Dietrich and R. Pfromm, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — E.ON Energie v Commission (T-141/08) in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 377 final of 30 January 2008 relating to a fine pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for breach of seal — Breach of general principles of law, such as the presumption of innocence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ and of proportionality, and the rules relating the burden and taking of evidence — Breach of the obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders E.ON Energie AG to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


Top