# C_2015406EN.01003401.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/34

---

Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France v Commission

(Case T-531/15)

(2015/C 406/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France (Auneau, France) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Titze, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it finds that the Applicant infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating, for the period indicated in Article 1(5)d) of the Commission’s Decision, in a single and continuous infringement consisting of several separate infringements in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector and covering the territory of France; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it finds that the Applicant infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating, for the period indicated in Article 1(5)d) of the Commission’s Decision, in a single and continuous infringement consisting of several separate infringements in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector and covering the territory of France; and

| — | annul Article 2(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 7 56  000 on the Applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 7 56  000 on the Applicant; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously applied the principle of personal responsibility in holding Coveris liable for alleged participation in a single and continuous infringement in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector in France. The exceptional circumstances of the case warranted the application of a holistic view in relation to the two parts of the ONO Packaging management buy-out or, alternatively, the application of the principle of economic continuity in relation to the asset deal part of the transaction. On that basis, Coveris could not be held liable for the alleged infringement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously applied the principle of personal responsibility in holding Coveris liable for alleged participation in a single and continuous infringement in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector in France. The exceptional circumstances of the case warranted the application of a holistic view in relation to the two parts of the ONO Packaging management buy-out or, alternatively, the application of the principle of economic continuity in relation to the asset deal part of the transaction. On that basis, Coveris could not be held liable for the alleged infringement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment by distinguishing between the asset deal portion of the ONO Packaging management buy-out and the share deal portion of the ONO Packaging management buy-out and consequently splitting liability between legal entities (i.e. Coveris and ONO Packaging Portugal SA) belonging to separate undertakings when attributing liability for alleged infringements committed by one and the same undertaking which remained intact following the management buy-out. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment by distinguishing between the asset deal portion of the ONO Packaging management buy-out and the share deal portion of the ONO Packaging management buy-out and consequently splitting liability between legal entities (i.e. Coveris and ONO Packaging Portugal SA) belonging to separate undertakings when attributing liability for alleged infringements committed by one and the same undertaking which remained intact following the management buy-out.

---