This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CO0450
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016.
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione - Spedizioni Internazionali SpA.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10% of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction.
Case C-450/15.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016.
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione - Spedizioni Internazionali SpA.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10% of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction.
Case C-450/15.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali
(Case C‑450/15) ( 1 )
‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10% of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction’
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Provisions of EU law rendered directly and unconditionally applicable by national law to situations outside their scope — Included — Condition — Need for the national court to indicate that such a reference exists — No such indication — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267, first para., (b), TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 5 and 23(2)) (see paras 15-24)
Operative part
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decision of 16 June 2015.
( 1 ) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.