CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES – ARTICLE 101 TFEU – SINGLE AND CONTINUOUS INFRINGEMENT – EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF – MARKET FOR METHACRYLATES

Single and continuous infringement: The General Court partially annuls a contested decision in particular on the ground of a lack of evidence methacrylates case (Quinn Barlo)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Trib. EU, 30 November 2011, Quinn Barlo and Others v. Commission, Case T-208/06, "Methacrylates". Primarily, the Court of First Instance has brought an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.645 - Methacrylates) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, the Court of First Instance has upheld that action in part and, consequently, reduced the fine imposed on the applicants from EUR 9 million to EUR 8.25 million. It should be recalled that this judgment follows a previous judgment on the same decision delivered by the Court of First Instance in Case

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)

Quotation

Cyril Sarrazin, Single and continuous infringement: The General Court partially annuls a contested decision in particular on the ground of a lack of evidence methacrylates case (Quinn Barlo), 15 February 2012, Concurrences N° 1-2012, Art. N° 42266, pp. 92-94

Visites 535

All reviews