Reports of Cases

2009 I-08237

Subject-matter

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, which rejected an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 – Choline chloride) (OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the European market for choline chloride – Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : paragraphs 41, 59
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A42 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A118 : paragraph 38
• Regulation 1/2003 -A23P2 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 : paragraphs 58, 60
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/69 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/72 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/82 : paragraph 60
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 : paragraph 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/98 : paragraph 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/98 : paragraphs 58, 61, 62
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 : paragraphs 54, 57
• General Court - Order T -111/01 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/02 : paragraphs 38, 54, 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/03 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/04 : paragraph 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -217/05 : paragraph 55
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -229/05 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/06 : paragraph 56
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -322/07 : paragraph 57
• Court of Justice - Order C -503/07 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -97/08 : paragraph 73

Operative part

• Confirms : General Court - Judgment T -112/05

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 3 -P1LG : point 40
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : points 29, 97, 101
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 225 : point 30
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 256 -L1 : point 37
  
• Treaty of Nice 2001 - Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice -A56L2 : point 23
  
• Treaty of Nice 2001 - Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice -A58L1 : point 30
  
• Agreement on the European Economic Area -A53 : points 97, 101
  
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A42P2 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A118 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A118 : point 31
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000) -A48P1 : point 74
  
• Regulation 1/2003 -A23P2 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -41/69 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/69 : points 44, 47, 48, 69, 72, 87 - 91, 97
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/69 : points 44, 87 - 89, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/72 : points 44, 87, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -6/73 : point 73
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/78 : points 48, 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/80 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -306/81 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/82 : points 47, 52, 66, 68, 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -110/88 : point 74
  
• General Court - Judgment T -6/89 : point 37
  
• General Court - Judgment T -65/89 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/92 : points 39, 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -136/92 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -199/92 : point 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/93 : point 24
  
• General Court - Judgment T -305/94 : points 37, 66
  
• General Court - Judgment T -327/94 : point 39
  
• General Court - Judgment T -354/94 : points 59, 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -395/96 : point 68
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -301/97 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -248/98 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/98 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -286/98 : points 60, 68
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/98 : points 39, 53 - 60, 66, 68, 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -294/98 : points 44, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -297/98 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -174/99 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -176/99 : point 68
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -196/99 : points 44, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -383/99 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/00 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -204/00 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -204/00 : points 37, 72, 74, 80, 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/00 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -277/01 : point 24
  
• General Court - Judgment T -314/01 : point 66
  
• General Court - Judgment T -325/01 : points 62 - 66
  
• General Court - Judgment T -330/01 : point 66
  
• General Court - Judgment T -43/02 : point 66
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/02 : point 28
  
• General Court - Judgment T -109/02 : points 62, 63, 67 - 69
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -189/02 : points 31, 44, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -458/03 : points 48, 72
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -105/04 : point 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -167/04 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -289/04 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -308/04 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -217/05 : point 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -229/05 : points 28, 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -328/05 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -362/05 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -412/05 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -412/05 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -76/06 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -280/06 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/06 : points 1, 36, 39, 44, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/06 : point 81
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/06 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -71/07 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 : points 30, 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -295/07 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -431/07 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -8/08 : points 72, 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -352/08 : point 30
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

Information not available

Date of the Opinion

• 23/04/2009

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

10/09/2009

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 128 from 24.05.2008, p.22

Judgment: OJ C 267 from 07.11.2009, p.17

Name of the parties

Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Idot, Laurence: Groupe de sociétés et responsabilité personnelle, Europe 2009, Novembre, Comm. nº 427, p. 35-36 (FR)
2. Galante, R.: La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice et du Tribunal de première instance. Chronique des arrêts. Arrêt "Akzo Nobel NV c/ Commission", Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2009 nº 3 p. 559-565 (FR)
3. Freund, Heinz-Joachim: Verteidigungsrechte im kartellrechtlichen Bußgeldverfahren, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2009 p.839-844 (DE)
4. Debroux, Michel: Chroniques. Ententes, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2009 nº 4 p.93-94 (FR)
5. Einhaus, Stefan: Parent Liability: Collective Responsibility Returns, European Law Reporter 2009 p.374-382 (EN)
6. Lieder, Jan ; Kliebisch, René: Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2010 p.149-150 (DE)
7. Barbier de La Serre, Éric: La notion d'entreprise au crible de la procédure, Revue Lamy de la Concurrence : droit, économie, régulation 2010 nº 22 p.75-77 (FR)
8. Koppensteiner, Hans-Georg: Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH vom 10. September 2009, Akzo Nobel u.a. / Kommission, Rs. C-97/08 P, Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht 2010 p.92-94 (DE)
9. Arhel, Pierre: Activité des juridictions communautaires en droit de la concurrence (septembre 2009), Petites affiches. La Loi / Le Quotidien juridique 2010 nº 72 p.9 (FR)
10. VerLoren van Themaat, I.W. ; Van Heezik, M.C.: Het toerekeningsleerstuk: de balans opgemaakt, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2010 p.90-95 (NL)
11. Philippe, Jérôme ; Trabucchi, Maria: Jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, Gazette du Palais 2010 nº 155-156 I Jur. p.24 (FR)
12. Van Vormizeele, Philipp Voet: Die EG-kartellrechtliche Haftungszurechnung im Konzern im Widerstreit zu den nationalen Gesellschaftsrechtsordnungen, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2010 p.1008-1017 (DE)
13. Tzakas, Dimitrios-Panagiotis L.: Epitheorisis tou Emporikou Dikaiou 2010 p.201-209 (EL)
14. Timmerbeil, Sven ; Mansdörfer, Marco: Die Behandlung kartellrechtlicher Bußgeldrisiken im Rahmen von M&A-Transaktionen, Betriebs-Berater 2011 nº 6 p.323-328 (DE)
15. Thomas, Stefan: Die Gesamtschuld im EU-Kartellbußgeldrecht - die Kommission als "juristischer Pascha"?, Recht, Ordnung und Wettbewerb - Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wernhard Möschel (Ed. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft - Baden-Baden) 2011 p.675-690 (DE)
16. Dömötörfy, Borbála Tünde: A százszázalékos tulajdonos anyavállalat meghatározó befolyására vonatkozó vélelem, illetve megdöntésének lehetőségei az Európai Unió bíróságainak legújabb ítéletei tükrében, Versenytükör 2011 2. szám p.13-19 (HU)
17. Wilhelm, Georg: Durchgriffs-Haftung der Mutter aus Kartellverstoß der Tochter? - Zu EuGH 10. 9. 2009, C-97/08 P, Akzo Nobel, Ecolex 2012 p.365 (DE)
18. De Bronett, Georg-Klaus: "Unternehmen" als "wirtschaftliche Einheiten" - Das neue EU-Kartellrecht nach der Rechtsprechung des EuGH in der Rs. C-97/08 P - "Akzo Nobel", Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2012 p.113-124 (DE)
19. Reinstadler, Armin ; Reinalter, Andreas: Imputabilità della responsabilità per la violazione dell'art. 101, comma 1, t.f.u.e. ad una società capogruppo per il comportamento illecito della propria controllata: una presunzione davvero confutabile?, Rivista di diritto societario 2012 p.523-529 (IT)
20. Ungureanu, Diana: Noțiunea de întreprindere în dreptul concurenței, Revista română de drept al afacerilor 2013 nº 5 p.113-125 (RO)
21. Bravo, Teresa: A responsabilidade das sociedades-mãe e das filiais em direito europeu da concorrência: análise crítica da jurisprudência Azko Nobel, Revista portuguesa de ciência criminal 2013 n°4 p.613-656 (PT)
22. Andersson, Helene: Kartellböter och företagsöverlåtelser - vem blir sittande med Svarte Petter?, Ny Juridik 2014 nº 2 p.89-99 (SV)
23. Van Leuken, Roel: Parental Liability for Cartel Infringements Committed by Wholly Owned Subsidiaries: Is the Approach of the European Court of Justice in Akzo Nobel also Relevant in a Private-Law Context?, European Review of Private Law / Revue européenne de droit privé / Europäische Zeitschrift für Privatrecht 2016 p.513–527 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

• Competition
  
• - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Actions for annulment
  
• Appeals : dismissal on substantive grounds
  

Formation of the Court

Troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Arabadjiev

Advocate General

Kokott

Language(s) of the Case

• English
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• German