# C_2021148EN.01002501.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/25

---

Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-130/21)

(2021/C 148/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Group SpA (Bibbiano, Italy), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Cucchiara and E. Rocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or

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

—

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

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against European Commission Decision C(2020) 8969 final of 17 December 2020, in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, which concerns infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In support of the action, the applicants relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).






  — | The applicants claim in that regard 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

—

The applicants claim in that regard 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.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the fine imposed on them is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. The mechanical application of the 10 % limit for each of the alleged infringements is contrary to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, as well as the principles that fines should be specific to the individual and progressive. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the fine imposed on them is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. The mechanical application of the 10 % limit for each of the alleged infringements is contrary to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, as well as the principles that fines should be specific to the individual and progressive.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, since it took into account only partially the evidence which concerns the inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard, that the contested decision, even though it acknowledges that the applicants are facing a very serious crisis, did not take that situation sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, since it took into account only partially the evidence which concerns the inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.

—

The applicants claim in that regard, that the contested decision, even though it acknowledges that the applicants are facing a very serious crisis, did not take that situation sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty.

---