This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CO0421
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 February 2012. # Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission. # Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Market for methacrylates - Concept of 'undertaking' - Presumption of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Extension of the authority of a final decision - Deterrent multiplying factor - Indivisible nature of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction. # Case C-421/11 P.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 February 2012.
Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission.
Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Market for methacrylates - Concept of 'undertaking' - Presumption of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Extension of the authority of a final decision - Deterrent multiplying factor - Indivisible nature of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction.
Case C-421/11 P.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 February 2012.
Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission.
Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Market for methacrylates - Concept of 'undertaking' - Presumption of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Extension of the authority of a final decision - Deterrent multiplying factor - Indivisible nature of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction.
Case C-421/11 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2012:60
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 February 2012 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
(Case C‑421/11 P)
Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Cartel — Market for methacrylates — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Presumption of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Extension of the authority of a final decision — Deterrent multiplying factor — Indivisible nature of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction
1. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 31, 69-71)
2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption that a parent company wields decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 25, 28, 30, 33, 38, 46-50, 62)
3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paras 41-42)
4. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Challenge on grounds of fairness to the General Court’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking — Excluded (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 87)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2011 in Case T‑206/06 | Total and Elf Aquitaine | v | Commission | , in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principle that the institutions must act within the limits of their powers and of the principle of proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of equality of arms — Duty to state reasons — Infringement of the principle of sound administration. |
Operative part
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
2. |
Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA are ordered to pay the costs. |