EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CA0521
Case C-521/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Case C-521/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Case C-521/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 2–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.11.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 340/2 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission
(Case C-521/09 P) (1)
(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
2011/C 340/03
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger and E. Lagathu, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Elf Aquitaine’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, and with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission; |
|
2. |
Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — AMCA), in so far as it imputes the infringement in question to Elf Aquitaine SA and imposes a fine on it; |
|
3. |
Orders Elf Aquitaine SA and the European Commission each to pay its own costs relating to this appeal; |
|
4. |
Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance. |