26That means, as the Court of First Instance held in paragraph 44 of the contested judgment, that Finnboard was held directly responsible for the infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty. However, as the Commission took the view that Finnboard had acted on behalf of and in the interest of the appellants, so that its anticompetitive conduct could be imputed to them, each of the appellants was declared jointly and severally liable for payment of part of the fine.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.