# C_2019383EN.01005501.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/55

---

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-522/15 CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case C-706/19 P)

(2019/C 383/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (represented by: S. Bariatti, E. Cucchiara, A. Cutrupi, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul in part, within the limits set out in the present appeal, the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision as far as concerns the fines imposed on the appellants for infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) the principle of proportionality and the principle of adequacy; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part, within the limits set out in the present appeal, the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision as far as concerns the fines imposed on the appellants for infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) the principle of proportionality and the principle of adequacy;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the present action, the appellants rely on the following grounds of appeal:

| 1. | First ground of appeal — Error in law, absence or inadequacy of reasoning in relation to the complaints relating to ‘parental liability’
  By its first ground of appeal, the appellants claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in law and the absence of inadequacy of reasoning in that the General Court ruled that the holding company of the group was liable, even though the intermediary company — which owned the companies involved in the infringement — was found not to be liable. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal — Error in law, absence or inadequacy of reasoning in relation to the complaints relating to ‘parental liability’

By its first ground of appeal, the appellants claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in law and the absence of inadequacy of reasoning in that the General Court ruled that the holding company of the group was liable, even though the intermediary company — which owned the companies involved in the infringement — was found not to be liable.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal — Manifest error of assessment and error in law in relation to the alleged infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003
  By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court manifestly erred in law by rejecting the plea relating to the incorrect application of the 10 % limit laid down in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, in that the Commission applied that limit to a turnover different to the consolidated turnover, calculated on the basis of the EU accounting consolidation rules. Moreover, the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and adequacy because of the unacceptable difference in treatment, for the purpose of the calculation of the consolidated turnover referred to in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, of, on the one hand, the areas of activity which were transferred on a definitive basis and, on the other hand, those which were leased, on the ground of a presumed difference in terms of economic and substantial profitability. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal — Manifest error of assessment and error in law in relation to the alleged infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003

By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court manifestly erred in law by rejecting the plea relating to the incorrect application of the 10 % limit laid down in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, in that the Commission applied that limit to a turnover different to the consolidated turnover, calculated on the basis of the EU accounting consolidation rules. Moreover, the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and adequacy because of the unacceptable difference in treatment, for the purpose of the calculation of the consolidated turnover referred to in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, of, on the one hand, the areas of activity which were transferred on a definitive basis and, on the other hand, those which were leased, on the ground of a presumed difference in terms of economic and substantial profitability.

---

(1)  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).

---