CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES - COLLUSIVE PRACTICES - FINES - NE BIS IN IDEM - PROPORTIONALITY

Principle of proportionnality: The CFI dismisses the appeals brought against the Sodium Gluconate decision and details some principles applying to the setting of fines (Archer Daniels Midland c/ Commission)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – CFI, 27 September 2006, Archer Daniels Midland v. Commission, "Citric acid", Case T-59/02 – CFI, 27 September 2006, Jungbunzlauer AG v. Commission, "Citric acid", Case T-43/02 As we have just seen, the judgments handed down by the CFI, which essentially concern the amount of the fines imposed by the Commission, often follow on from each other and are similar. This is the case with the first commented judgment, ADM v. Commission, on which we shall not go into much detail, since the solutions found by the Court of First Instance are now standard. The same is true of the fate reserved by the CFI for ADM's argument based on the

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

  • Rizom Legal (Paris)

Quotation

Michel Debroux, Principle of proportionnality: The CFI dismisses the appeals brought against the Sodium Gluconate decision and details some principles applying to the setting of fines (Archer Daniels Midland c/ Commission), 27 September 2006, Concurrences N° 4-2006, Art. N° 12552, p. 69

Visites 4182

All reviews