# C_2015354EN.01005201.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/52 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 10 September 2015 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-522/15)

(2015/C 354/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox group SpA (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Poliemme Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Hispania, SL (Lorca, Spain), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Bariatti and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or |
| - | -------------------------------------------- |

| — | in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision No C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, concerning the infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In support of that action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers on the grounds of failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons concerning the effects of the infringement.
—
The applicants claim in that respect that the conduct at issue has not taken place in practice, as is clear from the documents relating to the investigation and as even the Commission acknowledged in the contested decision. That situation should have been duly taken into consideration in the overall assessment of the severity of the infringements and, accordingly, when determining the applicable fines. However, that aspect is not taken into consideration in the contested decision. Nor are any reasons given in that regard. | — | The applicants claim in that respect that the conduct at issue has not taken place in practice, as is clear from the documents relating to the investigation and as even the Commission acknowledged in the contested decision. That situation should have been duly taken into consideration in the overall assessment of the severity of the infringements and, accordingly, when determining the applicable fines. However, that aspect is not taken into consideration in the contested decision. Nor are any reasons given in that regard. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants claim in that respect that the conduct at issue has not taken place in practice, as is clear from the documents relating to the investigation and as even the Commission acknowledged in the contested decision. That situation should have been duly taken into consideration in the overall assessment of the severity of the infringements and, accordingly, when determining the applicable fines. However, that aspect is not taken into consideration in the contested decision. Nor are any reasons given in that regard. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and adequacy in determining the basic amount of the penalty.
—
The applicants maintain in that respect that, for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the value of the sales made in the last year of participation in the infringement was taken into consideration in the contested decision, even though that value did not actually represent the true market strength of the applicants and the other parties to the proceedings. | — | The applicants maintain in that respect that, for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the value of the sales made in the last year of participation in the infringement was taken into consideration in the contested decision, even though that value did not actually represent the true market strength of the applicants and the other parties to the proceedings. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants maintain in that respect that, for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the value of the sales made in the last year of participation in the infringement was taken into consideration in the contested decision, even though that value did not actually represent the true market strength of the applicants and the other parties to the proceedings. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
—
The applicants maintain in that respect that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure:
—
includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; —
includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; —
does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. | — | The applicants maintain in that respect that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure:
—
includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; —
includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; —
does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. | — | includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; | — | includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; | — | does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicants maintain in that respect that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure:
—
includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; —
includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; —
does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. | — | includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; | — | includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; | — | does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. | | |
| — | includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company; | | | | | | | | |
| — | includes the turnover generated by an entity that was no longer part of the CCPL group at the time of the decision; | | | | | | | | |
| — | does not take any account of any specific circumstances concerning the breakdown of the turnover attributed to the CCPL group. | | | | | | | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.
—
The applicants claim in that regard that the serious crisis facing the packaging sector was not taken into account in the least in the contested decision and that the fine imposed on the applicants is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. | — | The applicants claim in that regard that the serious crisis facing the packaging sector was not taken into account in the least in the contested decision and that the fine imposed on the applicants is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants claim in that regard that the serious crisis facing the packaging sector was not taken into account in the least in the contested decision and that the fine imposed on the applicants is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringment by the European Commission of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, on the ground that it took into account only partially the evidence concerning inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.
—
The contested decision, although recognising the very serious crisis faced by the applicants, did not take that sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty. | — | The contested decision, although recognising the very serious crisis faced by the applicants, did not take that sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The contested decision, although recognising the very serious crisis faced by the applicants, did not take that sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty. | | |

---