Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities (T-59/02)
Judgment
Law
III —The gravity of the infringement
D —Errors of assessment relating to th…
2. The approach chosen by the Commissi…
(b)Findings of the Court
Findings of the Court
161

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities (T-59/02)

Judgment of 27 Sept 2006law://eu/cjeu/2002/t-59-02/para_161@2026-11-12

161Consequently, the actual impact of a cartel on the market must be regarded as having been sufficiently demonstrated if the Commission is able to provide specific and credible evidence indicating with reasonable probability that the cartel had an impact on the market.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: General Court · Third Chamber
Case: T-59/02 · ECLI:EU:T:2006:272
Decided: 27 Sept 2006
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co.
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: Azizi
Bench: 3 judges
J. Azizi, M. Jaeger, F. Dehousse
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002TJ0059

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

History · 1 version

27 Sept 2006Reading

Connections

Interpreted by the courts in 1: Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities (C-511/06)
Cited by 18: Scania AB and Others v European Commission (T-799/17); Teva UK Ltd and Others v European Commission (T-679/14); Lupin Ltd v European Commission (T-680/14); Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission (T-704/14)2 provisions; Toshiba Corp. v European Commission (T-404/12)2 provisions; Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission (T-409/12)2 provisions; Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Others v European Commission (T-84/13); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v European Commission (T-92/13); Esso Société anonyme française and Others v European Commission (T-540/08)2 provisions; Toshiba Corp. v European Commission (T-519/09); Saint-Gobain Glass France SA and Others v European Commission (T-56/09, T-73/09)2 provisions; Gigaset AG (formerly Arques Industries AG) v European Commission (T-395/09); Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Germany OHG v European Commission (T-588/08)2 provisions; Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall v European Commission (T-410/09); Shell Petroleum NV and Others v European Commission (T-343/06); GDF Suez SA v European Commission (T-370/09); E.ON Ruhrgas AG and E.ON AG v European Commission (T-360/09)2 provisions; KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA v European Commission (C-389/10 P)
Cites 22: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM), DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Montedison SpA, Elf Atochem SA, Degussa AG, Enichem SpA, Wacker-Chemie GmbH and Hoechst AG and Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) v Commission of the European Communities (C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P, C-251/99 P, C-252/99 P, C-254/99 P); Orkem v Commission of the European Communities (374/87); A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission of the European Communities (89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85, 125/85, 126/85, 127/85, 128/85, 129/85); Commission of the European Communities v Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's France SARL (C-367/95 P); Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v Commission of the European Communities (T-191/98, T-212/98, T-213/98, T-214/98); Aalborg Portland A/S, Irish Cement Ltd, Ciments français SA, Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA, Buzzi Unicem SpA and Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P, C-219/00 P); NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (322/81); Association internationale des utilisateurs de fils de filaments artificiels et synthétiques et de soie naturelle (AIUFFASS) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) v Commission of the European Communities (T-380/94); SA Musique Diffusion française and others v Commission of the European Communities (100/80, 101/80, 102/80, 103/80); Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (C-301/96); Sarrió SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-291/98 P); Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-224/00); ACF Chemiefarma NV v Commission of the European Communities (41/69); Mo Och Domsjö AB v Commission of the European Communities (T-352/94); Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission of the European Communities (T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95, T-104/95); Commission of the European Communities v Anic Partecipazioni SpA (C-49/92 P); EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty; BPB de Eendracht NV, formerly Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV, v Commission of the European Communities (T-311/94); Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (C-57/00 P, C-61/00 P); Metsä-Serla Sales Oy v Commission of the European Communities (C-298/98 P); Dansk Rørindustri A/S, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH and Others, KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, LR af 1998 A/S, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, LR af 1998 (Deutschland) GmbH and ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P, C-206/02 P, C-207/02 P, C-208/02 P, C-213/02 P)