{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-845-24-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-845-24-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-13","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:a03983","proof":"sha256:723dec3a121d01bac1e45d24143993de704c387845ce6bd8897941ef470cae4f","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-845-24-p","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_27","para_28"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"The Charter","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"Regulation (EC) No 1 /2003","paragraphs":["para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"The background to the dispute and the decision at issue","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraphs":["para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"The appeal","paragraphs":["para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206"],"kind":"costs"},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:","paragraphs":["para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212"],"kind":"operative"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"1 October 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 11(6) – European Commission initiating proceedings in a case on which a national competition authority is already acting – Request from that national authority for the Commission to relieve i …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑845/24 P,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 11 December 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Silgan Holdings Inc., established in Stamford, Connecticut (United States),","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria),","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Silgan International Holdings BV, established in Maarsbergen (Netherlands),","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH, established in Meissen (Germany),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH, established in Hannover (Germany),","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"represented by R. Grafunder, Y.-K. Gürer, D. Seeliger, E. Venot and H. Wollmann, Rechtsanwälte,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"the other parties to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"European Commission, represented by A. Keidel, G. Meesen and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"defendant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Federal Republic of Germany, represented by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Council of the European Union, represented by D. Bringuier and N. Brzezinski, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"interveners at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"THE COURT (Third Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"composed of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra and N. Fenger, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Advocate General: A. Biondi,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 March 2026,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"1         By their appeal, the appellants seek the annulment of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 October 2024, Silgan Holdings and Others v Commission , T‑589/22, EU:T:2024:662 (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed their action for annulment …","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"The EU Treaty","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"2         Article 5(3) TEU provides:","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"‘Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the [European] Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol [(No 2)] on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.’","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"The Charter","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"3         Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), entitled ‘Right to good administration’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that:","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"‘Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.’","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Regulation (EC) No 1 /2003","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"4         Recitals 17 and 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) state that:","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"‘(17)      If the competition rules are to be applied consistently and, at the same time, the network is to be managed in the best possible way, it is essential to retain the rule that the competition authorities of the Member States are automatically relieved of their competence if the [European] C …","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"(34)      The principles laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] … have given a central role to the Community bodies. This central role should be retained, whilst associating the Member States more closely with the application of the Community competition rules. In accordance with the principles of …","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"5         Article 7 of that regulation, entitled ‘Finding and termination of an infringement’, falls within Chapter III of that regulation, entitled ‘Commission Decisions’. That article 7 provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"‘Where the Commission, acting on a complaint or on its own initiative, finds that there is an infringement of Article [101 or of Article 102 TFEU], it may by decision require the undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned to bring such infringement to an end. For this purpose, it may impose on them any behavioural or structural remedies which are proportionate to the infringement committed and necessary to bring the infringement effectively to an end. …’","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"6         Article 11 of that regulation, entitled ‘Cooperation between the Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States’, falls within Chapter IV thereof, entitled ‘Cooperation’. That article 11 provides:","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"‘1.      The Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States shall apply the Community competition rules in close cooperation.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"3.      The competition authorities of the Member States shall, when acting under Article [101 or Article 102 TFEU], inform the Commission in writing before or without delay after commencing the first formal investigative measure. …","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"6.      The initiation by the Commission of proceedings for the adoption of a decision under Chapter III shall relieve the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply Articles [101 and 102 TFEU]. If a competition authority of a Member State is already acting on a case, the Commission shall only initiate proceedings after consulting with that national competition authority.’","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"The cooperation notice","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"7         The Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p.43; ‘the cooperation notice’) states:","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"‘…","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"7.      Where re-allocation is found to be necessary for an effective protection of competition and of the Community interest, network members will endeavour to re-allocate cases to a single well placed competition authority as often as possible … In any event, re-allocation should be a quick and efficient process and not hold up ongoing investigations.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"16.      In order to detect multiple procedures and to ensure that cases are dealt with by a well placed competition authority, the members of the network have to be informed at an early stage of the cases pending before the various competition authorities … If a case is to be re-allocated, it is indeed in the best interest both of the network and of the undertakings concerned that the re-allocation takes place quickly.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"18.      Where case re-allocation issues arise, they should be resolved swiftly, normally within a period of two months, starting from the date of the first information sent to the network pursuant to Article 11 of [Regulation No 1/2003]. During this period, competition authorities will endeavour to reach an agreement on a possible re-allocation and, where relevant, on the modalities for parallel action.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"19.      In general, the competition authority or authorities that is/are dealing with a case at the end of the re-allocation period should continue to deal with the case until the completion of the proceedings. Re-allocation of a case after the initial allocation period of two months should only occur where the facts known about the case change materially during the course of the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"31.      All network members will endeavour to make the allocation of cases a quick and efficient process. Given the fact that [Regulation No 1/2003] has created a system of parallel competences, the allocation of cases between members of the network constitutes a mere division of labour where some …","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"52.      The initiation of proceedings by the Commission is a formal act by which the Commission indicates its intention to adopt a decision under Chapter III of [Regulation No 1/2003]. …","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"53.      Two situations can arise. First, where the Commission is the first competition authority to initiate proceedings in a case for the adoption of a decision under [Regulation No 1/2003], national competition authorities may no longer deal with the case. Article 11(6) of [Regulation No 1/2003] …","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"54.      The second situation is where one or more NCAs have informed the network pursuant to Article 11(3) of [Regulation No 1/2003] that they are acting on a given case. During the initial allocation period (indicative time period of two months, see paragraph 18 above), the Commission can initiate …","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"(a)      Network members envisage conflicting decisions in the same case[;]","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"(b)      Network members envisage a decision which is obviously in conflict with consolidated case-law; the standards defined in the [judgments] of the Community courts and in previous decisions and regulations of the Commission should serve as a yardstick; concerning the assessment of the facts (e.g. market definition), only a significant divergence will trigger an intervention of the Commission;","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"(c)      Network member(s) is (are) unduly drawing out proceedings in the case;","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"(d)      There is a need to adopt a Commission decision to develop Community competition policy in particular when a similar competition issue arises in several Member States or to ensure effective enforcement;","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"(e)      The NCA(s) concerned do not object.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"The background to the dispute and the decision at issue","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"8         The background to the dispute, as described, in essence, in paragraphs 2 to 14 of the judgment under appeal, may be summarised as set out below.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"9         The appellants are part of the Silgan group, which is active in the metal packaging sector.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"10       On 21 May 2015, inspectors from the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office, Germany) searched the premises of a number of companies in that group.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"11       Following a request of 14 June 2017 by the Federal Cartel Office to investigate the present case, the Commission adopted, on 19 April 2018, Decision C(2018) 2466 final on the initiation of proceedings in Case AT. 40522 – Pandora (‘the decision to initiate proceedings’). Those proceedings we …","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"12       By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 4 July 2018, two companies in the Silgan group brought an action against the decision to initiate proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"13       By order of 15 March 2019, Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission (T‑410/18, EU:T:2019:166), the General Court dismissed that action as being inadmissible, on the ground that the decision to initiate proceedings constituted a preparatory act. By order of the Court of Justice of 29 January 2020, Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission (C‑418/19 P, EU:C:2020:43), the appeal against that order of the General Court was dismissed.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"14       By decision of 1 October 2021, the proceedings were closed in respect of all the territories of the European Economic Area (EEA), with the exception of Germany.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"15       Both the Crown group companies and the Silgan group companies acknowledged the existence of an infringement in Germany and indicated the maximum amount of the fine they expected to be imposed on them by the Commission and which they would accept in the framework of a settlement procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"16       On 12 July 2022 the Commission adopted the decision at issue. It found that companies in the Crown and Silgan groups had participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU in the sector of metal packaging in Germany from 11 March 2011 to 18 September 2014, thereby affecting competition between those two groups on a substantial part of the internal market, and imposed on the appellants, jointly and severally, a fine of EUR 23 852 000.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"17       By their action before the General Court, the appellants sought the annulment of the decision at issue in so far as it concerned them and sought to have the Commission be ordered to pay the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"18       They put forward three pleas in law in support of that action. The first plea alleged infringement of the principle of subsidiarity, set out in Article 5(3) TEU, the second, misuse of powers, and the third, infringement of the right to good administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"19       In the context of the first plea, the appellants submitted, in the alternative, that, if it were to be held that the Commission could apply Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 without being bound by an obligation to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, it would have to be inferred that Article 11(6) is itself unlawful in so far as it is incompatible with that principle.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"20       The Commission requested the General Court to dismiss the action and to order the appellants to pay the costs. The Commission also brought a counterclaim seeking to have the amount of the fine set at a higher level, of up to EUR 26 503 000.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"21       The Federal Republic of Germany and the Council of the European Union intervened in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"22       By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed both the appellants’ action and the Commission’s counterclaim. It ordered the appellants to bear their own costs and to pay 90% of the costs incurred by the Commission, the latter therefore bearing 10% of its own costs, while the Federal Republic of Germany and the Council were to bear their own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Forms of order sought by the parties","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"23       The appellants claim that the Court should:","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"–        set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as their action was dismissed;","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"–        annul the decision at issue; and","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"–        order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"24       The Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany contend that the Court should:","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"–        dismiss the appeal and","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"–        order the appellants to pay the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"25       The Council contends that the appeal should be dismissed in so far as it calls into question the General Court’s rejection of the plea of illegality in respect of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 raised by the appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"The appeal","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"26       The appellants put forward five grounds in support of their appeal. The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of subsidiarity (first ground of appeal), the prohibition of misuse of powers (second ground of appeal), the principle of proportionality (third ground of appeal), the principle that the administration is bound by its own decisions (fourth ground of appeal) and the Commission’s obligation to state reasons (fifth ground of appeal).","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"27       It is appropriate, in the first place, to examine the fourth ground of appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"The fourth ground of appeal: infringement of the principle that the administration is bound by its own decisions","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"28       The appellants maintain that, in finding, in paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, that they have not established that the Commission departed from the cooperation notice without a legitimate reason, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle that the administration is bound by its own decisions.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"29       They state that, under that principle, the Commission must follow rules of conduct which it has imposed on itself. The cooperation notice therefore has binding effect on the Commission. That notice contains rules of conduct, which have not been complied with in the present case, concerning the re-allocation of cases within the network.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"30       Accordingly, it follows from paragraph 19 of that notice that, after the two-month period laid down in paragraph 18 thereof has expired, Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 may be applied only where ‘the facts known about the case change materially during the course of the proceedings’. I …","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"31       Contrary to what is stated in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment under appeal, the application of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 is also inconsistent with paragraph 54(d) of the cooperation notice, since it has not been duly established that it was necessary to re-allocate the case …","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"32       The appellants add that it was also not permitted for the re-allocation of the case to be based on the mere fact that the Federal Cartel Office did not object to it. If paragraph 54(e) of the cooperation notice had to be understood as meaning that a failure by the national authority respons …","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"33       In the view of the appellants, the judgment under appeal also errs in so far as the General Court held, in paragraph 89 thereof, that the Commission is not bound by any specific time limit for the application of Article 11(6) of that regulation. The appellants state, in that regard, that it …","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"34       The Commission replies that the fourth ground of appeal is in part inadmissible. First, certain arguments put forward in support of that ground of appeal were not raised at first instance. Second, the appellants are asking the Court of Justice to make a new assessment of the facts. That ground of appeal is, in any event, unfounded, as submitted also by the German Government.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"–        Admissibility","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"35       As is apparent from the documents before the Court, the appellants’ argument, raised in support of the fourth ground of appeal, that the restructuring of the Silgan group during the proceedings before the Federal Cartel Office did not constitute a change in ‘the facts [of] the case’, as referred to in paragraph 19 of the cooperation notice, was not relied on before the General Court.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"36       That argument cannot be put forward for the first time before the Court. Indeed, in an appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas debated before the General Court (judgments of 1 June 1994, Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others , C‑136/92 P, EU:C:1994:211, paragraph 59, and of 16 April 2026, Colombani v EEAS (Passive or collective harassment) , C‑343/23 P, EU:C:2026:294, paragraph 85).","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"37       Since that argument is, in essence, the only one which the appellants derive from paragraph 19 of the cooperation notice in support of the fourth ground of appeal, it must be concluded that that ground of appeal is inadmissible in so far as it refers to paragraph 19.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"38       The fourth ground of appeal is also inadmissible in so far as it is based on the argument that the duration of the period of approximately 10 months between 14 June 2017, the date of the Federal Cartel Office’s request to be relieved of competence, and 19 April 2018, the date on which the Commission initiated proceedings, was excessive.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"39       The appellants do not state why the assessment of that duration, set out in paragraphs 94 to 99 of the judgment under appeal, is incorrect in law. Nor do they allege, in that regard, a distortion of the facts. Their argument therefore amounts to requesting the Court to carry out a fresh ass …","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"–        Substance","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"40       Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, the initiation by the Commission of proceedings for the adoption of a decision for the purposes of applying Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU has the effect of relieving the national competition authorities of their competence to apply those articles 101 and 102.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"41       As is apparent from the second sentence of Article 11(6) of that regulation, the fact of relieving the national competition authorities of competence resulting from that decision to initiate proceedings extends to situations in which the case in question is already the subject of proceeding …","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"42       According to its wording, that provision requires only, for the purposes of relieving the national competition authority already acting on the case of its competence, that the Commission consult that national authority, in order to ascertain its opinion on a possible re-allocation of the case.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"43       In the present case, the General Court was correct in finding, in paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal, that that requirement had been complied with. Since the Federal Cartel Office itself had requested the Commission to relieve it of competence, by that request it had expressed its op …","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"44       However, the compatibility with EU law of the initiation of proceedings for the adoption of a decision for the purposes of applying Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU, which has the effect of relieving a national competition authority which is already examining the case of its competence, cannot depend solely on compliance with the consultation requirement referred to in Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"45       When adopting a decision to initiate proceedings, the Commission is also required to comply with, inter alia, Article 41 of the Charter, which enshrines the right to good administration. It is true that the act of initiating a procedure for the adoption of a decision is only preparatory in …","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"46       The right to good administration implies, inter alia, that the case must be dealt with within a reasonable time. In cases concerning suspected infringements of Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU, that obligation constitutes, for all members of the network, a general principle of EU law an …","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"47       As regards the re-allocation of cases within the network, the requirement to act within a reasonable time is, in essence, recalled in recital 17 of Regulation No 1/2003 and in paragraphs 7 and 16 of the cooperation notice, from which it is apparent that such a re-allocation must, in the int …","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"48       As stated in paragraph 54 of that notice, where a national competition authority is already acting on a case, the ‘first information sent to the network’ is that by which that national authority informs the network, pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, that it is acting on that case.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"49       It is also apparent from that paragraph 54 that, after the expiry of the indicative time period of two months referred to in paragraph 18 of that notice, the Commission refrains, in principle, from applying Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"50       That rule of conduct is, however, subject to five exceptions, which are listed in paragraph 54(a) to (e) of the cooperation notice and concern, respectively, the possibility of conflicting decisions in the same case, the possibility of a decision which is obviously in conflict with consolid …","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"51       Announcing, by publishing the cooperation notice, that the rules set out therein will apply to the cases to which that notice relates, the Commission imposed a limit on the exercise of its discretion and cannot, as a general rule, depart from those rules, at the risk of being found to be in …","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"52       In the present case, it is not disputed that the re-allocation of the case to the Commission took place after the indicative time period of two months provided for in paragraph 18 of the cooperation notice had expired.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"53       It is also common ground that the Federal Cartel Office did not object to that re-allocation. In those circumstances, the exception provided for in paragraph 54(e) of that notice, by which the Commission reserves the possibility to apply, after that indicative period has expired, Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 on the sole ground that ‘the [national competition authority or authorities concerned] do not object’, could, a priori, apply.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"54       The appellants maintain, however, that the exception provided for in paragraph 54(e) is incompatible with the right to good administration, since it disregards the legitimate interests of the undertakings concerned.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"55       It must be stated that that argument does not have to be examined in the context of the present appeal since, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court did not hold that the Commission could confine itself to applying Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 solely on the basis of the Federal Cartel Office not having objected.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"56       Indeed, while it found, in paragraphs 23 and 47 of the judgment under appeal, that the only requirement laid down in Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 consists of consulting the national competition authority concerned, the General Court stated in paragraphs 59, 71, 85, 86, 91 and 92 of …","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"57       In the present case, the General Court considered that relieving the Federal Cartel Office of its competence was compatible with those standards. In that regard, it held, first, in paragraphs 56 to 60 and 72 of the judgment under appeal, that the restructuring of the Silgan group during the …","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"58       From that, the General Court inferred, in paragraphs 59, 60 and 88 of that judgment, that the re-allocation of the case at issue was capable of falling within paragraph 54(d) of the cooperation notice, according to which the Commission may, notwithstanding the indicative time period of two …","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"59       Those grounds of the judgment under appeal are not vitiated by any error of law. Contrary to the appellants’ assertions, the General Court did not have to require that the Commission demonstrate that it had become ‘impossible’ for the Federal Cartel Office to impose an effective penalty. In …","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"60       As the Advocate General observed in point 48 of his Opinion, the General Court also did not err in law in holding, in paragraph 93 of the judgment under appeal, that the reasonableness of the period must be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case. Therefore, contra …","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"61       It follows from all of the foregoing that the General Court did not err in law in holding that the Commission did not, in the present case, depart from the rules of conduct relating to the re-allocation of cases within the network which are set out in the cooperation notice and which must be applied in the light, inter alia, of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"62       Consequently, the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal: infringement of the prohibition of misuse of powers","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"63       The appellants maintain that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the prohibition of misuse of powers.","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"64       In their view, the General Court erred, in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, in rejecting their line of argument alleging misuse of powers by confining itself to finding, as it did in paragraph 57 of that judgment, that there was a risk that the Federal Cartel Office would not be a …","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"65       Furthermore, in adopting the decision to initiate proceedings, the Commission acted with the purpose of imposing a fine higher than that which could, in the present case, be imposed by the Federal Cartel Office in the case on which that authority was already acting. The General Court ought …","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"66       The Commission also deprived the appellants of their fundamental right, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, to an effective remedy. In that regard, the appellants observe that, because the Federal Cartel Office had been relieved of its competence, they cannot have their case heard befor …","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"67       The Commission and the German Government are of the view that the second ground of appeal is unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"68       According to the Court’s settled case-law, a measure is only vitiated by misuse of powers if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated or of evading a procedure sp …","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"69       Contrary to the appellants’ assertions, whether there had been a possible misuse of powers had to be examined by ascertaining not whether it was impossible for the Federal Cartel Office to impose an effective penalty, but rather whether the stated purposes coincided with purposes recognised …","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"70       The argument that the Commission, in the present case, harmonised the system of penalties is also wholly unfounded, since the initiation of proceedings in a case which until that point was being examined by a national competition authority in no way entails such harmonisation in the sense referred to by the appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"71       Nor has the fundamental right to an effective remedy, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, been infringed since, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the appellants had an effective remedy against the decision at issue before the General Court, which was the judge assign …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"72       It follows from the foregoing that the General Court did not err in law in the interpretation and application of the prohibition on misuse of powers. Consequently, the second ground of appeal must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"The third ground of appeal: infringement of the principle of proportionality","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"73       The appellants submit that, in order to ascertain whether the application of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 by the Commission exceeded what was appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued, the General Court ought to have examined whether it was impossible for the Federa …","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"74       In the alternative, the appellants maintain that the General Court infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to find that Article 11(6) was applied at an excessively late stage. In that regard, they observe that the Federal Cartel Office had been investigating the case for more …","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"75       Once more in the alternative, the appellants’ view is that the alleged advantages of the Commission initiating proceedings were disproportionate compared with the disadvantages caused to the Silgan Group in that regard. Those disadvantages include, in particular, there being two sets of inv …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"76       The Commission replies that the third ground of appeal is in part inadmissible, in so far as the appellants are challenging the General Court’s assessment of the facts without, however, establishing that there has been a distortion of those facts. That ground of appeal is, in any event, unfounded, as the German Government also submits.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"77       The principle of proportionality requires, in accordance with the established case-law of the Court, that acts adopted by the European Union must not exceed what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued (judgments of 17 May 1984, Denkavit Nederland , 15/83, EU:C:1984:183, paragraph 25, and of 29 July 2024, Koiviston Auto Helsinki v Commission , C‑697/22 P, EU:C:2024:641, paragraph 77).","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"78       As stated in paragraph 59 of the present judgment, the objective of Regulation No 1/2003 is to ensure the effective application of the EU competition rules and, in the present case, the General Court correctly found that the Commission was entitled to take the view that it was the authority …","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"79       Consequently, the re-allocation of the case to the Commission cannot be regarded as having exceeded what was appropriate and necessary to attain that objective.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"80       In so far as the appellants maintain, in the alternative, that the initiation of proceedings by the Commission took place at too late a stage, it must be observed that the appellants have not relied, in the context of the present plea, on any distortion of the facts, nor have they put forwa …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"81       Lastly, to the extent that the appellants rely, in the further alternative, on the disadvantages allegedly caused to the Silgan group by the application of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, it must be stated that the requirements to which the application of Article 11(6) is subject, su …","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"82       It follows from the foregoing that the General Court did not err in law in the interpretation and application of the principle of proportionality. Consequently, the third ground of appeal must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"The fifth ground of appeal: failure to comply with the requirement to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"83       The appellants complain that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in considering, in paragraphs 61 to 65 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had complied with its obligation to state reasons.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"84       They recall that, under that obligation, the reasoning of the EU authority which adopted the measure must be disclosed in a clear and unequivocal fashion in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to exercise its power o …","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"85       The General Court’s finding that certain press releases enabled the appellants to understand the context of the decision to initiate proceedings is irrelevant for the purpose of assessing whether the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU has been observed. Indeed, press releases cannot repla …","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"86       The Commission and the German Government maintain that the fifth ground of appeal is unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"87       As regards the assessment found in paragraphs 61 to 64 of the judgment under appeal, whereby, first, the statement, in recital 11 of the decision at issue, that the proceedings had been initiated at the request of the Federal Cartel Office and, second, the reference, in a number of press re …","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"88       As regards the substance, it should be recalled that the phrase ‘initiation by the Commission of proceedings’ in Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 concerns an act of the Commission by which it announces to an undertaking its intention to bring proceedings in order to adopt one of the de …","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"89       Where, as in the present case, the Commission initiates proceedings in a case on which a national competition authority is already acting, the lawfulness of that step depends, moreover, as has been stated in paragraphs 42 to 51 of the present judgment, on compliance with a number of other requirements, including those relating to prior consultation with that national authority and the application of the rules of conduct set out in the cooperation notice.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"90       However, the Commission cannot be expected to set out, in a decision to initiate proceedings, the reasons why it takes the view that those requirements are met. As has been recalled in paragraph 45 of the present judgment, such a decision is only preparatory in character and therefore does not constitute, in itself, a challengeable act.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"91       The decision at issue, which constitutes an act having an adverse effect, must, for its part, enable the persons concerned to ascertain the justifications for the measure and enable the court which is competent to exercise its power of review. Under settled case-law, the requirements to be …","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"92       In the present case, the measure taken by the Commission in the decision at issue consists, in essence, in finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, and imposing a penalty. Nevertheless, it must be held, in the light of the relevant legal rules, which include Article 11(6) of Regulation …","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"93       In the light of that consideration, and of the case-law referred to in paragraph 91 of the present judgment, it must be held that the General Court did not err in law in interpreting and applying the requirement to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. Indeed, …","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"94       It should also be pointed out, in that regard, that the press releases, although referred to in that assessment by the General Court in order to support the fact that the appellants were aware of the context of the re-allocation of the case to the Commission, must not, however, be regarded …","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"95       It follows from the foregoing that the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as being unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"The first ground of appeal: infringement of the principle of subsidiarity","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"96       The appellants maintain that the General Court, in essence, held in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment under appeal that where proceedings relating to a cartel are pending before a national competition authority, the Commission may, under Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, initiate proceedings and thereby bring to a close the proceedings pending before that national authority simply by consulting that authority beforehand.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"97       That assessment by the General Court amounts to ruling out the possibility that, in the application of the system of parallel competences established by Regulation No 1/2003, there may be an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5(3) TEU.","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"98       However, according to the appellants, that principle must be taken into consideration in the context of the application of Article 101 TFEU. It follows that administrative action by the Commission in the context of the system of parallel competences established by Regulation No 1/2003 is su …","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"99       The misinterpretation of the scope of the principle of subsidiarity led the General Court to find, incorrectly, in paragraph 41 of the judgment under appeal, that the circumstances relied on by the appellants whereby, first, the Federal Cartel Office was about to close its proceedings, seco …","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"100     In the view of the appellants, the General Court also erred in rejecting, in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment under appeal, the plea of illegality in respect of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 raised by the appellants. The General Court having considered that that provision confers …","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"101     As regards the consequences of the restructuring of the Silgan group on whether the Federal Cartel Office could impose a fine, the appellants are of the view that the General Court could not confine itself to making an abstract observation that a restructuring is capable of having such a con …","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"102     The Commission replies that the first ground of appeal is unfounded. The principle of subsidiarity does not concern the application of legislative acts of the European Union, but rather their adoption. The application of Article 101 TFEU by the Commission and the national competition authori …","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"103     The German Government, while supporting the Commission’s position that the first ground of appeal must be rejected, is of the view that that ground of appeal is ineffective, since the principle of subsidiarity, which concerns the limits of competences between the European Union and the Membe …","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"104     The Council, for its part, states that, in accordance with Article 5(3) TEU, the principle of subsidiarity does not apply to areas of exclusive competence of the European Union. However, Regulation No 1/2003 falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union, since it establishes the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, as provided for in Article 3(1)(b) TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"105     As has been stated in paragraphs 55 and 56 of the present judgment, the General Court did not confine itself to finding that the re-allocation to the Commission of a case on which a national competition authority was acting requires that national authority to be consulted, but stated that su …","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"106     It was in the light of all those standards and rules of conduct that the General Court held that the Commission could take the view that it was better placed to act on the case.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"107     Therefore, contrary to the appellants’ assertions, the assessment carried out by the General Court does not amount to recognition that the Commission has the power to relieve a national competition authority acting on a case relating to a suspected infringement of the EU competition rules of …","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"108     Therefore, even assuming – which the Commission, the German Government and the Council dispute – that the application of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 is subject to observing the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5(3) TEU, which would require, as the appellants submit, t …","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"109     It follows that the first ground of appeal is based on incorrect premisses, as regards not only the interpretation of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 by the General Court in the light of the relevant standards and rules of conduct which it had identified, but also the application of that provision to the present case in the judgment under appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"110     Lastly, in so far as the appellants complain that the General Court did not uphold the plea of illegality in respect of Article 11(6) of that regulation which they had raised in the alternative, it must be stated that that criticism is based on those incorrect premisses, whereby that provisi …","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"111     Since both the main and subsidiary components of the first ground of appeal are therefore based on incorrect premisses, the first ground of appeal is unfounded and must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"112     Since none of the grounds of appeal has been upheld, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"113     In accordance with Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"114     Under Article 138(1) of those rules, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"115     Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the appellants and they have been unsuccessful in all their grounds of appeal, the appellants must be ordered to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to pay those incurred by the Commission relating to those proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"116     Under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the Member States and EU institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Council must, therefore, be ordered each to bear their own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"1.       Dismisses the appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"2.       Orders Silgan Holdings Inc., Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH, Silgan International Holdings BV, Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH and Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH to pay, in addition to their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings, those incurred by the European Commission relating to those proceedings;","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"3.       Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: German","paragraph_id":"para_212"}],"operative_part":"On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:\n\n1.       Dismisses the appeal;\n\n2.       Orders Silgan Holdings Inc., Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH, Silgan International Holdings BV, Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH and Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH to pay, in addition to their own …","word_count":10804,"cites":["C-845/24","T-589/22","T-410/18","C-418/19","C-136/92","C-343/23","C-136/02","C-31/23","C-679/23","C-572/18","C-105/04","C-588/24","C-189/02","C-202/02","C-205/02","C-208/02","C-213/02","C-75/05","C-80/05","C-291/22","C-132/19","C-697/22","C-857/19","C-457/23","C-72/15"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"698cf189ad785cb8f4fb6205266aa3010a825262fd048eaf91e9627e85a6617a","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0845","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T14:44:53.663+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-845-24-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-845-24-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-845-24-p","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-845-24-p"},"hash":"sha256:723dec3a121d01bac1e45d24143993de704c387845ce6bd8897941ef470cae4f","version":"legal-2026-10-13","expires":"2026-10-14T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-13+legal-2026-10-13+2026-10-13T12:55:18","content_hash":"sha256:723dec3a121d01bac1e45d24143993de704c387845ce6bd8897941ef470cae4f","revalidate_after":"2026-10-13T14:22:38.853Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-845-24-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-845-24-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-845-24-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-845-24-p"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-845-24-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-4a19e01df8417dbd6d7e51406a640098","response_hash":"sha256:723dec3a121d01bac1e45d24143993de704c387845ce6bd8897941ef470cae4f"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T03:15:38.530Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-845-24-p","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":17622}}