CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES – IMPUTABILITY – PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP – PRESUMPTION OF DECISIVE INFLUENCE – REPEATED INFRINGEMENT – FINES – DISSUASIVE EFFECT – RELEVANT TURNOVER – LENIENCY

Imputability - Fines: The General Court rules on the implementation of the parental liability presumption to the same undertakings concerned by the hydrogen peroxide cartel case (Arkema France, Total et Elf Aquitaine)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. GCEU, 14 July 2011, Arkema France v. Commission, case T-189/06, "Hydrogen peroxide and perborate". GCEU, 14 July 2011, Total and Elf Aquitaine v. Commission, case T-190/06, "Hydrogen peroxide and perborate". A few weeks before the Court ruled in the monchloroacetic acid case (see previous commentary), the Court of First Instance had itself had occasion to review the application of the concept of decisive influence to the same undertakings in the context of the Commission's decision on the hydrogen peroxide and perborate cartel. In that case, the Commission had in that case jointly and severally ordered Arkema, Elf and now also Total (for the part of 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

Quotation

Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Imputability - Fines: The General Court rules on the implementation of the parental liability presumption to the same undertakings concerned by the hydrogen peroxide cartel case (Arkema France, Total et Elf Aquitaine), 14 July 2011, Concurrences N° 4-2011, Art. N° 39928, pp. 91-92

Visites 513

All reviews