Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v European Commission (T-113/17)

Judgment of 20 Dec 2023

law://eu/cjeu/2017/t-113-17/para_226@2026-11-14

226The foregoing is not called into question by recitals 125, 135 and 634 of the contested decision, on which the applicants rely. Indeed, in those recitals, the Commission found, in essence, that the arrangements between the traders had been supplemented and implemented through communications between those traders and their submitters within the treasury departments of the banks, and ‘on occasions’, by the latter actually submitting communicated, coordinated or agreed Euribor rates. The Commission correctly submits that the applicants’ arguments that the Crédit agricole treasury was not involved in the practices seeking to influence Euribor rates are at most capable of showing that the bank’s treasury did not implement the anticompetitive conduct, rather than showing that the traders were not participating in that conduct (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 October 1991, Atochem v Commission, T‑3/89, EU:T:1991:58, paragraph 100).

Crédit agricole SA and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v European Commission (T-113/17)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version