Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:433
Date: 2009-07-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Determining the amount of the fine;Hearing of persons concerned and of third parties / Access to the file
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful;Appeal against penalty - successful

summary of an interview with an ADM employee as evidence of leadership; 3. The CFI distorted the evidence by stating that Cerestar's statement as to ADM's leadership is corroborated; 4. The CFI failed to give reasons for dismissing ADM's plea that Cerestar's failure tp identify positively or provide details of Sherpa meetings is fatal to Cerestar's statement that ADM led those meetings; 5. the CFI erroneously concluded that ADM is estopped from disputing the accuracy of Cerestar's statement because it did not do so during the administrative procedure; 6. The CFI infringed the principle that the Commission must follow self-imposed rules by: (a) permitting the Commission to disregard termination of the infringement as a relevant attenuating circumstance; (b) holding it that the Commission had proven impact on a market without defining the relevant market; 7. the CFI infringed the principle of legitimate expectations in applying the Leniency Notice by concluding that ADM was a leader and could not qualify for Section B leniency; 8. the CFI misapplied the law on legitimate expectations in finding that the Commission's representations during the administrative procedure did not give rise to a justified expectation that ADM would receive a reduction in penalty under Section B of the Leniency Notice. ____________