# C_2018142EN.01002201.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/22 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Marine Harvest ASA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2017 in Case T-704/14: Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission

(Case C-10/18 P)

(2018/C 142/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Marine Harvest ASA (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the General Court’s judgment, in whole or in part; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 23 July 2014 or, in the alternative, annul the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Commission to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs, both these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | If necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

| | 1. | By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to apply Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004( 1 ) (‘EUMR’) in this case.
a.
First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the ‘single concentration’ concept, in particular in dismissing Recital 20 of EUMR as a basis for interpreting the EU legislator’s intent to treat as a ‘single concentration’ all transactions that ‘are linked by a condition’. b.
Second, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the rationale of Article 7(2) EUMR. | a. | First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the ‘single concentration’ concept, in particular in dismissing Recital 20 of EUMR as a basis for interpreting the EU legislator’s intent to treat as a ‘single concentration’ all transactions that ‘are linked by a condition’. | b. | Second, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the rationale of Article 7(2) EUMR. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| a. | First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the ‘single concentration’ concept, in particular in dismissing Recital 20 of EUMR as a basis for interpreting the EU legislator’s intent to treat as a ‘single concentration’ all transactions that ‘are linked by a condition’. | | | | | |
| b. | Second, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the rationale of Article 7(2) EUMR. | | | | | |

| | 2. | By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in imposing two fines for the same conduct.
a.
The judgment violated the principle of ne bis in idem by fining Marine Harvest twice for acquiring title to Mr. Malek’s 48,5 % shareholding: €10 million once on the basis of Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to notification (alleged infringement of Article 4(1) EUMR) and a further €10 million on the basis of Article 14(2)(b) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to clearance (alleged infringement of Article 7(1) EUMR). b.
In the alternative, the judgment violated the set-off principle because it failed to take into account the first penalty when determining the second penalty. c.
In the further alternative, the judgment erred in law in failing to apply the principle of concurrent offences: the alleged breach of the notification obligation in Article 4(1) was the more specific offence and therefore subsumed the alleged breach of the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) EUMR, which was the more general offence. | a. | The judgment violated the principle of ne bis in idem by fining Marine Harvest twice for acquiring title to Mr. Malek’s 48,5 % shareholding: €10 million once on the basis of Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to notification (alleged infringement of Article 4(1) EUMR) and a further €10 million on the basis of Article 14(2)(b) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to clearance (alleged infringement of Article 7(1) EUMR). | b. | In the alternative, the judgment violated the set-off principle because it failed to take into account the first penalty when determining the second penalty. | c. | In the further alternative, the judgment erred in law in failing to apply the principle of concurrent offences: the alleged breach of the notification obligation in Article 4(1) was the more specific offence and therefore subsumed the alleged breach of the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) EUMR, which was the more general offence. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| a. | The judgment violated the principle of ne bis in idem by fining Marine Harvest twice for acquiring title to Mr. Malek’s 48,5 % shareholding: €10 million once on the basis of Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to notification (alleged infringement of Article 4(1) EUMR) and a further €10 million on the basis of Article 14(2)(b) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to clearance (alleged infringement of Article 7(1) EUMR). | | | | | | | |
| b. | In the alternative, the judgment violated the set-off principle because it failed to take into account the first penalty when determining the second penalty. | | | | | | | |
| c. | In the further alternative, the judgment erred in law in failing to apply the principle of concurrent offences: the alleged breach of the notification obligation in Article 4(1) was the more specific offence and therefore subsumed the alleged breach of the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) EUMR, which was the more general offence. | | | | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1).

---