OpenLegislation

Commission Decision of 30 April 2004 concerning cases COMP/D2/32448 and 32450 Compagnie Maritime Belge SA (Follow-up after the Court of Justice judgment of 16 March 2000) (notified under document number C(2004) 1779) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (2005/480/EC) (revoked)

EU Decision 2005/480 · Adopted 30 April 2004 · Extends to United Kingdom

Original text. legislation.gov.uk does not revise this item, so later amendments are not shown here. Changes made to it are listed under each provision when known.

Commission Decision

of 30 April 2004

concerning cases COMP/D2/32448 and 32450 Compagnie Maritime Belge SA (Follow-up after the Court of Justice judgment of 16 March 2000)

(notified under document number C(2004) 1779)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(2005/480/EC) (revoked)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annotations to the whole text

Textual amendments

F1

Decision revoked (31.12.2020) by The Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/93), reg. 1(1), Sch. 3 para. 2 (as amended by S.I. 2020/1343, reg. 34(3)); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

Contents

  1. IINTRODUCTION Repealed
  2. (1)Division (1) Repealed
  3. IIPROCEDURE Repealed
  4. (2)Division (2) Repealed
  5. (3)Division (3) Repealed
  6. (4)Division (4) Repealed
  7. (5)Division (5) Repealed
  8. (6)CMB, CMBT and a second company that had been fined, Dafra-Lines A/S, appealed the CFI judgment. In its judgment of 16 March 2000 (hereafter the ECJ judgment) the Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected all appeal grounds submitted in relation to the substance of the original decision: Repealed
  9. (7)The reason for the annulment was that the Commission had failed to indicate clearly in the statement of objections: Repealed
  10. (8)Division (8) Repealed
  11. IIITHE DECISION Repealed
  12. (9)Division (9) Repealed
  13. (10)In the original decision the Commission found that the members of Cewal had a joint dominant position on the shipping routes between Zairean ports and northern European ports. They had abused that dominant position in order to eliminate competition from two other competing shipping companies by: Repealed
  14. (11)In the legal assessment it is reflected that the Commission considers the elements of the original decision as to the existence, character and extent of the infringements either as: Repealed
  15. (12)Division (12) Repealed
  16. (13)Division (13) Repealed
  17. IVFINE Repealed
  18. (14)Division (14) Repealed
  19. (15)Division (15) Repealed
  20. (16)Division (16) Repealed
  21. (17)Division (17) Repealed
  22. (18)Division (18) Repealed
  23. (19)Division (19) Repealed
  24. (20)Division (20) Repealed
  25. (21)Division (21) Repealed
  26. (22)Division (22) Repealed
  27. (23)Division (23) Repealed
  28. (24)Division (24) Repealed

IINTRODUCTIONF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(1)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IIPROCEDUREF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6)CMB, CMBT and a second company that had been fined, Dafra-Lines A/S, appealed the CFI judgment. In its judgment of 16 March 2000 (hereafter the ECJ judgment) the Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected all appeal grounds submitted in relation to the substance of the original decision:F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(7)The reason for the annulment was that the Commission had failed to indicate clearly in the statement of objections:F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(8)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IIITHE DECISIONF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(9)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(10)In the original decision the Commission found that the members of Cewal had a joint dominant position on the shipping routes between Zairean ports and northern European ports. They had abused that dominant position in order to eliminate competition from two other competing shipping companies by:F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(11)In the legal assessment it is reflected that the Commission considers the elements of the original decision as to the existence, character and extent of the infringements either as:F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(12)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(13)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IVFINEF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(14)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(15)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(16)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(17)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(18)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(19)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(20)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(21)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(22)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(23)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(24)F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .