CASE COMMENTS : ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES – ARTICLE 101 TFEU – IMPUTABILITY – PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP – FINES – MARKET OF METHACRYLATES

Imputability – Fines: The General Court substantially reduces the fine imposed on a producer of acrylic glass and confirms its case-law on the rebuttable presumption that the parent company exercises decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary (Total et Elf Aquitaine, Arkema)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Trib. UE, June 7, 2011, Total and Elf Aquitaine v. Commission, Case T-206/06, "Methacrylates". Trib. EU, June 7, 2011, Arkema France and others v. Commission, Case T-217/06, "Methacrylates". In two judgments delivered on 7 June 2011, the Court of First Instance confirmed the fine imposed in Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.645 - Methacrylates) on Total and Elf Aquitaine, as parent companies of Arkema. On the other hand, it substantially reduced the fine imposed on Arkema. In Case T 206/06, the Court of First Instance first examined, of the nine pleas raised by the applicants in support of their application for

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, Imputability – Fines: The General Court substantially reduces the fine imposed on a producer of acrylic glass and confirms its case-law on the rebuttable presumption that the parent company exercises decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary (Total et Elf Aquitaine, Arkema), 7 June 2011, Concurrences N° 3-2011, Art. N° 37320, pp. 98-99

Visites 500

All reviews