Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 February 2012 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
(Case C‑421/11 P)
Appeal— Regulation (EC) No1/2003— 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 paras17, 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 No1/2003, Art.23(2)) (see paras25, 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, Arts36 and 53, first para.) (see paras41-42)
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 No1/2003, Art.23) (see para.87)
Re:
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7June2011 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 31May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article81EC and Article53 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. |