Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 - Archer Daniels Midland v Commission
(Competition - Cartels - Citric acid - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - Principle of proportionality - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Decatur, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C.O. Lenz, lawyer, L. Martin Alegi, M. Garcia, and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, Agent)
Re:
Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/742/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 - Citric acid) (OJ 2002 L 239, p. 18) in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by agreeing to restrict capacity in the market in question and to designate a producer who was to lead price increases in each national segment of the said market, and for the annulment of Article 3 of the same decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on it.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/742/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 - Citric acid), in so far as, read in conjunction with recital 158, it finds that Archer Daniels Midland Co. froze, restricted and closed down citric acid production capacity;
Annuls Article 1 of Decision 2002/742 in so far as, read in conjunction with recital 158, it finds that Archer Daniels Midland Co. designated a producer who was to 'lead' price increases in each national segment of the relevant market;
Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Orders the Commission to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by Archer Daniels Midland Co.;
5. Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the remainder of its own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.
____________1 - OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.