CASE COMMENTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES – IMPUTABILITY – PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP – PRESUMPTION OF DECISIVE INFLUENCE – REPEATED INFRINGEMENT

Imputability: The Court of Justice imposes a reinforced obligation to state reasons on the European Commission in the mono-chlorine acetic case (Arkema, Elf Aquitaine)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CJEU, September 29, 2011, Arkema v. Commission, Case C-520/09 P, "Monochloroacetic acid". CJEU, 29 September 2011, Elf Aquitaine v Commission, Case C-521/09 P, "Monochloroacetic acid". It will be remembered that the Monochloroacetic Acid Cartel (MCAA) case gave rise to one of the most emblematic challenges to the application of the presumption of decisive influence (see this column, Concurrences No. 2-2011, p. 104 and Concurrences No. 4-2009, p. 95). An emblematic case highlighting the limits of the presumption of decisive influence when applied to a financial holding company In this case, the Commission considered it justified to apply the presumption

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: The Court of Justice imposes a reinforced obligation to state reasons on the European Commission in the mono-chlorine acetic case (Arkema, Elf Aquitaine), 29 September 2011, Concurrences N° 4-2011, Art. N° 39922, pp. 87-89

Visites 684

All reviews