Case T-322/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Roquette Frères v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency notice — Equal treatment Principle ne bis in idem)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, competition law, economic concentration

C 294/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

Annulment of Article 1 of Decision C(2001) 2931 of 2
October 2001 concerning a procedure under Article 81 of the
Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/E
1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate), in so far as it pertains to the
applicant or, in the alternative, annulment of Article 3 of that
decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Roquette Frères SA at

EUR 8 105 000;

2. Varies Decision C(2002) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of
(COMP/E-1/36.756 —
Sodium gluconate) in so far as it is inconsistent with paragraph 1
above;

the EEA Agreement

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4. Orders Roquette Frères SA to pay all of the costs.

2. Orders

the Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van

Aardappelmeel en Derivaten Avebe BA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 16.3.02.

(1) OJ C 68, 16.3.2002.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2006 — Roquette Frères v Commission

(Case T-329/01) (1)

(Case T-322/01) (1)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted prac-
tices — Sodium gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine —
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Leniency notice — Equal treat-
ment Principle ne bis in idem)

(Competition — Cartels — Sodium Gluconate — Article 81
EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guide-
lines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice —
Principle of proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-retro-
activity — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the
defence)

(2006/C 294/84)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 294/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roquette Frères, SA (Lestrem, France)
by: O. Prost, D. Voillemot and A. Choffel, lawyers)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: initially, A. Bouquet, W. Wils and A. Whelan, and
subsequently A. Bouquet, W. Wils and A. Whelan, Agents,
assisted by A. Condomines and J. Liygonie, lawyers)

Parties

Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Decatur, Illinois, United
States) (represented by: C.O. Lenz, lawyer, L. Martin Alegi, M.
Garcia and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Whelan, A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)

Re:

Re:

the EEA Agreement

First, an application for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of Deci-
sion C(2002) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article
53 of
(COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium
gluconate), in that it sets the amount of the fine imposed on
the applicant; second, an application for a reduction in the
amount of the find; and, third, an application for repayment to
the applicant of the amounts unlawfully received.

Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Deci-
sion C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of
the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium Gluco-
nate) in so far as it pertains to the applicant, or at least to the
extent that it finds the applicant was party to an infringement
after 4 October 1994, and for annulment of Article 3 of that
decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant or, in the alter-
native, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the
decision.