CFI, 7th chamber, September 30, 2009, No T-174/05

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-174/05)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Monochloroacetic acid market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Market sharing and price fixing – Rights of the defence – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Imputability of the infringement – Principle that penalties must fit the offence – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – Presumption of innocence – Principle of sound administration – Principle of legal certainty – Misuse of powers – Fines

1.                     Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content – Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23 and 27(1)) (see paras 55-56, 70-71, 196-198)

2.                     Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply competition rules – Decision relating to several addressees (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 79-80)

3.                     Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – No discretion of the Commission (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 106-108, 225-227)

4.                     Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Undertaking – Concept – Economic unit – Attribution of infringements – Parent company and subsidiaries – Joint and several liability of the companies concerned (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 121-124, 184-187, 192-194)

5.                     Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Obligation of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary – Applicability of the presumption where the parent company holds nearly all the capital of the subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 125, 151-156, 160, 172-173)

Re:

Operative part

The Court: