- 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 T-343/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in sodium chlorate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — Aggravating circumstance — Repeat infringement — Mitigating circumstance — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Significant added value)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TA0343
62008TA0343
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
25.6.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 186/20
(Case T-343/08) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sodium chlorate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - Aggravating circumstance - Repeat infringement - Mitigating circumstance - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value)
2011/C 186/36
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas and H. Kanellopoulos, then S. Sorinas, E. Jégou and M. Sabeva, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, É. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, Agents)
Re:
Principally, action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate), in so far as that decision relates to Arkema France and, in the alternative, action for annulment or reduction of the amounts of the fines imposed on that company in that decision.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Arkema France to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.