CELEX: 62012CA0036
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-36/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary — Obligation to state reasons)

4.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 253/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission
   (Case C-36/12 P) (1)
   
   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 253/05
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Armando Álvarez SA (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, E. Garayar Gutiérrez and C. Ruixo Claramunt, abogados)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-78/06 Álvarez v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Armando Álvarez
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the appeal;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Armando Álvarez SA to pay the costs of this appeal.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.