Cases T- 45/10 GEA Group v Commission, T- 47/10 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, T- 189/10 GEA Group v Commission and T- 485/11 Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (Heat stabilisers cartel) [Archived]
Cases T- 45/10 GEA Group v Commission, T- 47/10 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, T- 189/10 GEA Group v Commission and T- 485/11 Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (Heat stabilisers cartel) [Archived]

The following Competition guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Cases T- 45/10 GEA Group v Commission, T- 47/10 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, T- 189/10 GEA Group v Commission and T- 485/11 Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (Heat stabilisers cartel) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related/relevant cases

CASE HUB

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2015; it is no longer maintained.

See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases

NOTE–appeal lodged by Akzo Nobel at Court of Justice in Case C-516/15 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Heat stabilisers cartel)

Case facts

Outline Appeals to the General Court seeking annulment and/or a reduction in fine regarding the Commission's decision of 11 November 2009 (as amended by subsequent amending decisions) finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing fines of €168.4m and €3.803m on Akzo Group and GEA Group respectively in relation to their alleged participation in EEA-wide cartels concerning the market for tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers ('Heat stabilisers cartel').

On 15 July 2015, the General Court partially annulled the infringement decision insofar as it relates to the fines imposed on Akzo and annulled in full the subsequent amending decision insofar as it relates to Akzo (and as a consequence reducing the fines imposed on Akzo and Akcros to €40.194m and €11.882m respectively). In terms of GEA's actions, the General Court dismissed in its entirety GEA's challenge of the underlying infringement decision but annulled the subsequent amending decision insofar as it