*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – CFI, 27 September 2006, Avebe v Commission, "Sodium gluconate", Case T-314/01. Although very much concerned with the litigation of fines, the Sodium Gluconate case (see this review, supra, chron. Cartels, note M.D.) also allowed the judge to address an interesting question of procedural law. In support of its action (Case T-314/01), one of the four applicants, Avebe, relied on a plea in law in which it criticised the Commission in particular for not having taken the necessary steps to obtain a copy of a statement made by one of its colleagues, Akzo Nobel ('Akzo'), to the American competition authorities which, in its view, was likely to contain
CASE COMMENT: PROCEDURES - RIGHT OF DEFENSE - EXCULPATORY DOCUMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS - RIGHTS OF DEFENSE - EXCULPATORY DOCUMENT - DECLARATION
Rights of defense: The CFI holds that the European Commission cannot be criticised for not having tried to obtain a declaration made to a foreign competition authority if it has not been previously invited to do so (Avebe v. Commission)
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.