CASE COMMENTS : ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES – CARTEL – IMPUTABILITY – PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP – PARENTAL LIABILITY – PRESUMPTION OF DECISIVE INFLUENCE – FINES – INCREASE FOR DETERRENCE – LENIENCY

Imputability – Fines: The General Court approves the Commission’s decision on all counts in the Sodium chlorate case (Elf Aquitaine, Arkema)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Trib. EU, 17 May 2011, Elf Aquitaine v Commission, Case T-299/08, "Sodium Chlorate". Trib. UE, 17 May 2011, Arkema France v Commission, Case T-343/08, "Sodium Chlorate". It is sometimes difficult to read the judgments of the Court of First Instance together: a few weeks before delivering a judgment analysing in detail the Commission's reasoning on the presumption of decisive influence and reminding it of its duty to state reasons (Trib UE, 16 June 2011, Case T-185/06, see previous commentary), the Court of First Instance has to give a detailed analysis of the Commission's reasoning on the presumption of decisive

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

Quotation

Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Imputability – Fines: The General Court approves the Commission’s decision on all counts in the Sodium chlorate case (Elf Aquitaine, Arkema), 17 May 2011, Concurrences N° 3-2011, Art. N° 37317, pp. 97-98

Visites 641

All reviews