# C_2012184EN.01000502.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/5

---

Appeal brought on 16 April 2012 by The Dow Chemical Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08: The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission

(Case C-179/12 P)

2012/C 184/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: The Dow Chemical Company (represented by: D. Schroeder and R. Polley, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant;

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant;

| — | In the alternative, set aside the General Court's judgment in case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to substantially reduce the fine imposed on it; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, set aside the General Court's judgment in case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to substantially reduce the fine imposed on it;

| — | Substantially reduce the fine imposed on it; |
| --- | --- |

—

Substantially reduce the fine imposed on it;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the Dow Chemical Company's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the Dow Chemical Company's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

| — | Take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal contains two pleas. According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law as concerns the imputation of the infringement to the Appellant. Since the Appellant did not exercise decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers (‘
  DDE
  ’), a joint venture with EI du Pont de Nemours and Company, it did not participate in the infringement committed by DDE. The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the related concepts of a single economic unit, of a single undertaking and of the exercise of decisive influence. According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law as concerns the increase of the Appellant's fine by 10 % for deterrence. The General Court erred in law by holding that the Commission did not breach the principle of equal treatment in this respect.

DDE

---