- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-172/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2012 by EI du Pont de Nemours and Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and others v European Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0172
62012CN0172
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.6.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 194/10
—
(Case C-172/12 P)
2012/C 194/16
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce, A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)
Other parties to the proceedings: DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-76/08 insofar as it upheld the Commission's finding that the Appellant was a party to the infringement and liable to pay a fine;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the General Court erred in law in finding that the appellant was liable for infringements by DuPont Dow Elastomers (‘DDE’). Insofar as the appellant is successful on this ground of appeal, it follows that:
—as regards the period prior to the establishment of DDE (when the chloroprene rubber business had been owned by the appellant) the General Court erred in law in not ruling that the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine on the appellant in respect of participation by its subsidiaries, and
—in circumstances where the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine and failed to demonstrate a legitimate interest for issuing a decision against the appellant, the General Court erred in law in ruling that the appellant was liable for participation by its subsidiaries in the period prior to the establishment of DDE.
—