Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:601
Date: 2013-09-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal against penalty

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 – EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (Case C-172/12 P) 1 (Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for chloroprene rubber – Price-fixing and market-sharing – Infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company – Joint control by two parent companies – Decisive influence – Joint and several liability – Limitation period – Legitimate interest) Language of the case: English Parties Appellants: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors) Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Biolan, acting as Agents), DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors) Re: Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08 EI du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission, in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 – Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel in the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant – Joint venture – Imputability of the unlawful conduct Operative part of the judgment The Court: Dismisses the appeal; Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs. ____________ ____________ 1 OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.