**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2011 – Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission**

**(Case T-206/06)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for methacrylates – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Rights of the defence – Presumption of innocence – Duty to state reasons – Principle of equal treatment – Principle that penalties must fit the offence – Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – Principle of sound administration – Principle of legal certainty – Misuse of powers – Fines – Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies

1.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries (Arts 81
EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 45-48, 115-116, 205)*

2.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries – Subsidiary
held by a holding company – Fact not sufficient to reverse the presumption (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003,
Art. 23(2)) (see paras 78-79, 85)*

3.                     *Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content – Observance of the rights of the defence
– Undertakings afforded the opportunity to state their views on the facts, objections and circumstances alleged by the Commission
(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 130-133)*

4.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply competition rules – Decision relating
to several addressees – Need for sufficient reasoning, particularly with regard to the entity having to bear the burden of
an infringement (Arts 81 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 177-178)*

5.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries – Allocation
of payment of the fine between the various legal entities comprising the economic unit – No infringement of the unitary character
of the concept of an undertaking (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 205-209)*

6.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – No obligation to take account of fines already imposed for
other anti-competitive activities (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 297-298)*

7.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined
undertaking (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 303)*

8.                     *Procedure – Request that the oral procedure be reopened – Conditions for admissibility – New evidence capable of having a
decisive impact on the decision (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 62) (see para. 306)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 – Methacrylates) and, in the alternative, amendment of Article 2(b) of that decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs. |