CELEX: C2006/294/85
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-329/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Sodium Gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principle of proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-retroactivity — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

2.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 294/40
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission
   (Case T-329/01) (1)
   
   (Competition - Cartels - Sodium Gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle of proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-retroactivity - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 294/85)
   Language of the case: English
   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 (represented by: A. Whelan, A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 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 Gluconate) 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 alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 84, 6.4.2002.