General Technic-Otis Sàrl, General Technic Sàrl, Otis SA and Others and United Technologies Corporation v European Commission (T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07, T-146/07)

Judgment of 13 Jul 2011

law://eu/cjeu/2007/t-141-07/para_104@2026-11-13

104Furthermore, it is not disputed that Mr D himself participated in the anti‑competitive meetings referred to in Article 1(3) of the contested decision (see Tables 8 and 10 in recitals 311 and 347 of the contested decision), [confidential] from 1 January 1996, and that GT was therefore perfectly well aware of GTO’s actions and was implicated in them. The General Court has, in that regard, already held that the anti-competitive conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company where there is specific evidence implicating the parent company in the subsidiary’s anti-competitive actions. That is obviously the position in this case, [confidential] (see, to that effect, Case T‑309/94 KNP BT v Commission [1998] ECR II‑1007, paragraph 47). Thus, having regard to the case-law cited in paragraph 87 above, Mr D cannot be dissociated from GT, [confidential], but must on the contrary be regarded as forming an economic unit with it.

General Technic-Otis Sàrl, General Technic Sàrl, Otis SA and Others and United Technologies Corporation v European Commission (T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07, T-146/07)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections