EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-77/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0077

62008TN0077

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
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

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/22

(Case T-77/08)

(2008/C 116/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;

in the alternative, substantially reduce its fine; and

order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a single and continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the chloroprene rubber sector.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the facts and erred in law in holding the applicant liable for the infringement of the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish that the applicant had a decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers. Furthermore, the applicant contends that it did not form a single economic unit with DuPont Dow Elastomers.

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts, erred in law and failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision:

in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 even though the duration of the infringement was only six years and one month;

in increasing the fine to be imposed on the applicant by 10 % for sufficient deterrent effect; and

in not granting the applicant the maximum available leniency reduction of 30 %.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia