Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T10:15:16.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Smoke Without Fire – The Spanish Raw Tobacco Cartel Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gonçalo Miguel Banha Coelho
Gonçalo Miguel Banha Coelho*
Affiliation:
European University Institute, goncalo.coelho@eui.eu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Case T-29/05, Deltafina SpA v. Commission and Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. and Others v. Commission

The General Court partially annuls the Commission's decision on Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 and reduces the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission on Deltafina SpA from EUR 1 188 000 to EUR 6 120 000 (author's headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 275 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Judgment of 8 September 2010 on Case T-29/05, Deltafina SpA v. Commission (not yet reported) and Judgment of 27 October on Case T-24/05, Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. and Others v. Commission (not yet reported).

2 The price brackets per quality grade were only fixed in the last three years of the cartel.

3 2007/236/EC: Summary of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2) – Raw tobacco – Spain (notified under document number C(2004) 4030), OJ L 102, 19.4.2007, p. 14, Section 9.2 (ii) – hereinafter “summary of the contested decision”.

4 Article 3 of the contested decision.

5 Summary of the contested decision, Section 8, para. 1.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., Section 9.4.

8 Ibid., Section 9.5.

9 Ibid., Section 9.7.

10 Case T-29/05, Deltafina.

11 Summary of the contested decision, Section 8, para. 2.

12 Case T-24/05, Alliance One International.

13 Case T-29/05, Deltafina, para. 31.

14 Ibid., paras. 39–40.

15 Ibid., para. 90.

16 Case T-29/05, Deltafina, paras. 129–136.

17 Ibid., paras. 48 and 59 and Case T-99/04 AC Treuhand v. Commission [2008] ECR II 1501, paras. 122, 127 and 128.

18 Ibid., para. 71.

19 Case T-29/05, Deltafina, paras. 147 and 328.

20 Ibid., paras. 70–73.

21 Ibid., para. 333.

22 Ibid., paras. 408–411.

23 Ibid., para. 439.

24 Case T-29/05, Deltafina, para. 325.

25 Ibid., para. 95.

26 Ibid., paras. 114 and 324.

27 Ibid., para. 327.

28 Ibid., para. 332.

29 Ibid., paras. 333–335.

30 Ibid., paras. 309, 321 and 328.

31 Ibid., para. 329.

32 Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03, Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, [not published in the ECR], para. 138; Joined Cases 100/80 to 103/80 Musique diffusion francaise and Others v. Commission [1983] ECR 1825, para. 21, and Case T-23/99 LR AF 1998 v. Commission [2002] ECR II-1705, para. 199.

33 Ibid., paras. 139–141.

34 Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03, Tokai Carbon, para. 148 and Case C-328/05 P, SGL Carbon AG v. Commission [2007] ECR I-03921, para. 60.

35 Case C-511/06 P, Archer Daniels Midland (“ADM”) Co v. Commission [2009] ECR I-05843, paras. 52 and 72 and Case T-59/02 Archer Daniels Midland v. Commission [2006] ECR II-3627, paras. 436–439.

36 Case C-511/06 P ADM, para. 88.

37 Ibid., paras. 89 and 84.

38 Case T-29/05, Deltafina, para. 333.

39 Case C-511/06 P ADM, para. 88.

40 Case C-537/10 P.