fine taper | slight taper | taper of slow taper

low-risk goods [ low-risk products ]

low-level waste | LLW | low level waste | low-level radioactive waste | LLRW

low print-through tape [ low print tape ]

sanction (EU) [ Community sanction | EU fine | EU fining policy | EU pecuniary sanction | EU penalty payment ]

very low level waste | VLLW | very low level radioactive waste | very low level nuclear waste

ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel | ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel | ultra-low-sulphur diesel | ULSD | ultra-low-sulfur diesel | clean diesel

The failure to rule within a reasonable time period caused the applicant three types of loss between 12 February 2010 and 27 September 2012: (1) increased costs related to a bank guarantee for the amount of the fine that the applicant did not immediately pay to the Commission following the adoption of decision No C(2007)5791 final of 28 November 2007 in Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass; (2) opportunity costs because the low rate of interest on the amount of the fine belatedly returned to the applicant following the Court of Justice’s judgment in 2014 was much lower than the potential return that the applicant could have achieved if, instead of paying this money ...[+++] to the Commission in 2008, it had invested it in its business; and (3) non-pecuniary damages due to the decision wrongly having imposed the highest fine on the applicant in November 2007 and, due to the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time, this only being belatedly remedied by the Court of Justice in November 2014.

The reduction in the fine of 5 % is too small and does not properly reflect the different impact of the cartel organisers and main participants and the only very minor participation of the applicants.

In order to guarantee that the severity of penalties is not disproportionate to the criminal offence, a specific safeguard for cases of lower amounts of counterfeits is being proposed, i.e. one threshold below which a lower penalty of imprisonment can be imposed and another one below which also a fine can be imposed, unless the case features particularly serious circumstances.

− The ENVI resolution was fairly narrowly adopted (final vote 292/274/38) with the following changes/remarks: the reference to ‘without prejudice to moving to a 1.5 ºC limit’ was deleted with a narrow majority (RCV Amendment 14 and Amendment 18: 307/304/xx); the explicit mention that LULUCF and AAU loopholes could nullify all Annex I targets was deleted (Amendment 16: 316/301/xx), but other paragraphs requiring robust rules that are designed to deliver emissions reductions from Annex I remained.