# C_2016287EN.01002801.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/28

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission

(Case T-313/16)

(2016/C 287/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Grupo Riberebro Integral, SL (Alfaro, Spain) and Riberebro Integral, SA (Alfaro, Spain) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and A. Rincón García-Loygorri, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, as regards the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, since it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission of the facts on the basis of which it refused to recognise the applicants’ inability to pay; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, as regards the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, since it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission of the facts on the basis of which it refused to recognise the applicants’ inability to pay;

| — | in the alternative, pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction granted in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in accordance with Article 261 TFEU, vary Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, reducing the fine imposed on Riberebro; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction granted in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in accordance with Article 261 TFEU, vary Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, reducing the fine imposed on Riberebro;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings arise from the leniency application submitted by a specific company to the European Commission, in relation to that company’s participation in a cartel in the canned mushrooms sector. As the text of the decision itself states, that cartel sought to stabilise the mushroom market and stop the decline of prices.

The applicants do not dispute the facts or their legal characterisation, which they have already accepted in cooperating in the leniency procedure and in their reply to the statement of objections, in which they stated that they accepted the description and legal assessment of the facts. In the present proceedings, it is the assessment and proportionality of the fine imposed which are contested.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that the manifest error of assessment referred to vitiates the assessment of the facts on the basis of which the applicants’ inability to pay was rejected. Indeed, the imposition of the fine irretrievably jeopardises the applicants’ economic viability, would cause their assets to lose all their value and fails to take into account the social and economic context. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant.

—

It is submitted in that regard that the manifest error of assessment referred to vitiates the assessment of the facts on the basis of which the applicants’ inability to pay was rejected. Indeed, the imposition of the fine irretrievably jeopardises the applicants’ economic viability, would cause their assets to lose all their value and fails to take into account the social and economic context.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the failure to observe the principle of proportionality.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that there is a failure, in the contested decision, to take into account the applicants’ limited portfolio of products. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

—

It is submitted in that regard that there is a failure, in the contested decision, to take into account the applicants’ limited portfolio of products.

---