Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CA0413

Case C-413/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — Lafarge SA v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plasterboard — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Burden of proof — No proper statement of reasons — Regulation No 17 — Article 15(2) — Penalty — Repeated infringement — Stage at which the deterrent effect of the fine is to be taken into account)

IO C 221, 14.8.2010, p. 5–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/5


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — Lafarge SA v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-413/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plasterboard - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Burden of proof - No proper statement of reasons - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Penalty - Repeated infringement - Stage at which the deterrent effect of the fine is to be taken into account)

2010/C 221/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Lafarge SA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet, E. Paroche, H. Kanellopoulos and C. Medina, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents), Council of the European Union

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case T-54/03 Lafarge SA v Commission rejecting the appellant’s action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 November 2002, which imposed a fine on the appellant pursuant to Article 81 EC — Cartel fixing prices in the plasterboard sector — Infringement of the obligation to state adequate grounds and the rules governing the burden of proof — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as regards the calculation of the fine — Concept of ‘repeated infringement’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Lafarge SA to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


Top