Commission européenne, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Bruxelles, BELGIQUE  
Europese Commissie , DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Brussel,   BELGIË  
 
Tel: +32 229 -91111. Fax: +32 229 -64301. E -mail: COMP -MERGER -REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu .  EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
Brussels,  11.08.2022  
C(2022 ) 5950 final  
PUBLIC VERSION  
 
Faerch A/S  
Rasmus Færchs Vej 1  
DK-7500 Holstebro  
Denmark  
Subject : Case M. 10651 – FAERCH / PACCOR  
Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation 
No 139/20041 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic 
Area2 
Dear Sir or Madam,  
(1) On 6 July 2022 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed 
concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by wh ich Faerch A/S 
(‘Faerch’ or the ‘Notifying Party’, Denmark) acquires within the meaning of 
Article 3(1)(b) sole control of the whole of PACCOR Holdings GmbH (‘Paccor’, 
Germany) . The proposed acquisition takes place by way of purchase of shares (the 
‘Propos ed Transaction’).3 Faerch and Paccor are referred to as the ‘Parties’ and 
together as the ‘Merged Entity’.  
                                                 
1  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’). With effect from 1 December 2009,  the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) has introduced certain changes, such as the 
replacement of ‘Community’ by ‘Union’ and ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’. The 
terminology of the TFEU will be used t hroughout this decision.  
2  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 (the ‘EEA Agreement’).  
3  Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 269 , 13.7.2022, p. 30.  
In the published version of this decision, 
some information has been omitted 
pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning 
non-disclosure of business secrets and other  
confidential information. The omissions are 
shown thus […] . Where possible the 
information omitted has been replaced by 
ranges of figures or a general description.  
 
2 1. THE  PARTIE S  AND THE  OPE RATION  
(2) Faerch, headquartered in Denmark, is a subsidiary of APMH Invest A/S, which is 
wholly owned and controlled by A.P. Møll er Holding A/S  (‘APMH’) , which is 
wholly owned and controlled by a foundation, A.P. Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc -
Kinney Møllers Fond til almene Formaal . Faerch is a  European manufacturer and 
distributor of plastic packaging. It produces rigid plastic packa ging by use of all 
major resins, principally for the food industry in Europe, including namely ready -
meals, food -to-go, and fresh meat solutions.  
(3) Paccor is headquartered in Germany, and indirectly wholly owned and controlled 
by Goldberg Lindsay & Co. via its controlled group companies or related entities 
Atlas Flexibles Coöperatief U.A., a cooperative with excluded liability 
incorporated under the l aws of the Netherlands, and Lindsay Goldberg Europe 
GmbH, a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Germany 
(together ‘the Sellers’). Paccor is a manufacturer and distributor of plastic 
packaging. It produces rigid plastic packaging by use  of all major plastic resins for 
food, principally Dairy and industrial food, and to a lesser extent non -food 
applications. PACCOR UK Limited and PACCOR (Mansfield) UK Limited, both 
wholly owned by Paccor, have been carved out of  the Transaction.  
(4) Pursuant to a Share and Loan Purchase Agreement signed by the Parties on 28/29 
December 2021, Faerch will acquire 100% of the shares with all rights attaching to 
them in Paccor from the Sellers.  
(5) It follows that the Proposed Transaction is a concentrati on within the  meaning 
of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.  
2. UNION  DIME NSION  
(6) The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover 
of more than EUR 5 000 million (Faerch4: EUR […] in 20205; Paccor: EUR  […] in 
2020). Each of them has an EU -wide t urnover in excess of EUR 250 million 
(Faerch: EUR […] in 2020; Paccor: EUR […] in 2020). Furthermore, the Parties do 
not achieve more than two -thirds of their aggregate EU -wide turnover within one 
and the same Member State. The notified operation therefore  has an EU dimension .  
3. RE LE VANT MARKE TS  
(7) Faerch and Paccor are both active in the manufacture and supply of rigid plastic 
packaging for food and non -food applications . The Proposed Transaction gives rise 
to horizontally affected markets in the manufacture a nd supply of rigid plastic 
packaging – in particular for food.  
(8) The Proposed Transaction also gives rise to vertical relationships due to Faerch’s 
limited external sales of PET6 resin and extruded plastic sheets. The ma nufacture 
and sale of PET resin  and extruded plastic sheets are markets upstream of the 
                                                 
4  The turnover of Faerch includes APMH‘ s group turnover.  
5  The Parties’ 2021 turnovers do not differ from 2020 figures in a way to impact the identified EU 
dimension of the notified operation.    
6  PET - Polyethylene Terephthalate . 
 
3 manufacture and supply of rigid plastic packaging (where Faerch and Paccor are 
active).   
3.1. Relevant product markets  
3.1.1.  Rigid plastic packaging  for food  
3.1.1.1.  The Commission’s past practice  
(9) The Commission in a previous decision considered that rigid plastic packaging 
constitutes a distinct product market separate from other forms of packaging such 
as metal, but ultimately left the product market open.7 In other previous decisions , 
the Commission considered a fur ther distinction based on production method  
(Thermoforming and Injection  moulding)  and resin type  (PP, PS  and EPS),8 but left 
the exact product market definition open.9 While the Commission has previously 
not decided on distinct ions by end -use applications  in relation to rigid plastic 
packaging, it has noted limits to substitutability between rigid plastic packaging 
products for food and for non -food applications.10 Further, in  relation to flexible 
plastic packaging, the Commission considered food separately  from other 
applications.11 
3.1.1.2.  The Notifying Party’s view  
(10) The Notifying Party submits that there is significant competitive pressure on rigid 
plastic packaging by non -plastic packaging materials and flexible plastic 
packaging.12 The Notifying Party nevertheless submits that the narrowest plausible 
product market is that for the manufacture and supply of rigid plastic packaging.13 
No further distinction between rigid plastic packaging for food and non -food is 
necessary as they are made with the same machinery and resins.14 Similarly , the 
Notifying Party argues that any other or further segmentations would be 
excessively narrow (e.g. by resin type, food type or production method), due to 
significant supply - and demand -side substitutab ility.15 
3.1.1.3.  The Commission’s assessment  
3.1.1.3.1.  Rigid plastic packaging is a market distinct from other types of packaging  
(11) The market investigation points to the fact that there is limited supply - and 
demand -side substitutability between rigid plastic packaging and ot her types of 
packaging. The majority of respondents, both customers and  competitors , stated  
                                                 
7 Commission decision of 25 March 2011 in Case M.6128 - Blackstone/Mivisa, paras 20 -22.   
8  PP – Polypropylene; PS – Polystyrene; XPS/EPS - Expanded polystyrene foam . 
9  Commission decision of 23 September 1999 in Case M.1656 – Huhtamäki Oyj/Royal Packaging  
Industries Van Leer NV, paras 7 -17; Commission decision of 1 February  1999 in Case M.1400 – 
Rexam/PLM, paras 8 -19. 
10  See e.g. Commission decision of 23 September 1999 in Case M.1656 - Huhtamäki Oyj/Royal 
Packaging Industries Van Leer NV, para. 15.   
11  Commission decision of 29 September 2003 in Case M.3225 - Alcan/Pechiney, para. 128.   
12  Form CO, para 207.  
13  Form CO, para 209.  
14  Form CO, para 210.  
15  Form CO, paras 211 -225. 
 
4 that they would not easily be able  to switch their purchases or production of rigid 
plastic packaging to that of other types  of packaging.16 
(12) In particular, customers  explained that, from a technical standpoint , it would be  
difficult to switch their packaging lines from rigid plastic packaging to other types 
of packaging.17 One customer stated that such a change ‘ […] would imply heavy 
investment in new and different pac kaging lines  for many of our food producing 
customers ’.18 Some customers expressed the view that such a switch would 
degrade the quality of the final product, with one stating that ‘[d] airy products 
require barrier packaging to keep product safe’ ,19 and another that ‘[…] product 
shelflife will be much shorter’ .20 Competitors  expressed similar views, st ating that 
their production technologies cannot be used with materials other than rigid plastic 
packaging, with one competitor stating that ‘ [o]ur produ ction capacities are 
specific for plastic extrusion, and can only be conditioned to work to other 
polymers. But neve r for paper, glass or aluminium . These are other 
technologies ’.21 Another competitor submitted that ‘ [a] switch to different 
packaging materi als would involve quite extensive costs for new machinery, and 
extensive training of personnel ’.22  
(13) Therefore, the Commission considers rigid plastic packaging  to be a market distinct 
from other types of packaging.   
3.1.1.3.2.  Rigid plastic packaging for food is a mar ket distinct from rigid plastic 
packaging for non -food 
(14) The Commission has investigated whether rigid plastic packaging should be further 
segmented between food and non -food applications. I n a related product market, 
the Commission found that flexible plast ic packaging for food applications and for 
non-food applications constituted separate product markets.23 In the present case, 
the evidence also support s such a  distinction. Indeed,  a majority of both customers 
and competitors expressing their view indicated that there exist significant 
differences between rigid plastic packaging for food and for non -food 
applications .24  
(15) Market participants pointed in particular to stricter regulatory standards  for rigid 
plastic packaging for food applications, with one customer citing ‘[c] onformity with 
the complex and severe European direct food contact legislation to be respected 
and declared, for food applications, which does not apply to non -food 
applications ’25 as a key difference.  Competitors have expressed simi lar views with 
regards to stricter regulatory requirements, with one competitor pointing out that 
                                                 
16  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 9; Responses to Questio nnaires to Competitors, 
question 7.  
17  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 9.1.  
18  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 9.1.  
19  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 9.1 .  
20  Responses to Questionnaires to Customer s, question 9.1.  
21  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question 7.1.  
22  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question 7.1.  
23  Commission decision of 29 September 2003 in Case M.3225 - Alcan/Pechiney, para. 128.   
24  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 10; responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, 
question 9.  
25  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 10.1.  
 
5 ‘[w]hile food approv ed A -pet sheet can be used for [n]on-food applications, A -pet 
sheet which is not food approved [cannot]  be used for food applications ’.26 Another 
has stated that ‘ [requirements]  for food safety imposed by EFSA and the Quality 
norms are much more strict ’.27 
(16) Therefore, the Commission considers rigid pla stic packaging for food to be 
a market distinct from rigid plastic packaging for non -food applications.  
(17) The Commission has also investigated whether it would be appropriate to further 
sub-segment rigid plastic packaging for food applications alternatively by end-use 
(i.e. Dairy, Ready Meals (microwaveable), Ready Meals (oven heatable), Food -To-
Go, Fresh Meat, Food Service , others ),28 resin type  (i.e. APET, CPET, PP, PS, 
XPS/EPS, PVC and others) ,29 and production method  (i.e. Thermoforming , 
Injection moulding, Form, Fill, and Seal, and other technologies).   
3.1.1.3.3.  Further segmentation  of rigid plastic p ackaging for food  by end -use 
(18) There are factors  that point to some supply - and demand -side subst itutability with 
regards to end -use. In particular, for a specific end -use, in the majority of cases, 
customers indicated that, for a given end -use, they would b e able to  purchase rigid 
plastic packaging made with at least two different  production  technologies, and 
produced from at least two different resin types (the exception would be for Ready -
Meals ( oven heatable), as this end -use heavily relies on CPET).30  
(19) Nevertheless, there are clear limitations on the demand -side substitutability with 
regards to a further segmentation by end -use. For example, only certain resins may 
be used in a microwave or in the oven , due to higher temperature requirements. 
Some  types of food  similarly  require specific resins. Furthermore, a majority 
of customers submit that, in the process of their procurement of rigid plastic 
packaging for food applications, the intended end-use of the packaged product 
features in their discussions  with their suppliers , as the end -use is relevant for 
the formulat ion (i.e. technology and resin type ) of the rigid plastic packaging .31 In 
this context, a customer submits that ‘[…] every food needs suitable packaging 
based on intrinsic peculiarities of the p roduct that must be preserved  […]’.32 
Another customer submits that ‘ [e]nd use is normally commented because a 
supplier may be able to supply [useful]  information for production process, shelf 
life, cost reduction, etc ’.33 Competitors have broadly expressed similar views.34 
(20) Similarly, a  majority of competitors indicated they could in a short matter of time 
and without incurring significant costs switch their production lines from one type 
of end -use to another type of end -use. For a given end -use, competitors have 
                                                 
26  Responses to Questionnai res to Competitors, question 9.2.  
27  Responses to Quest ionnaires to Competitors, question 9.1.  
28  This is Faerch’s internal end -use classification.  
29  APET - Amorphous Polyethylene Terephthalate; CPET - Crystalline Polyethylene Terephthalate; 
PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride.   
30  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, questions 15 and 16.   
31  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 11 , question 11.1 . 
32  Responses to Questionnaire s to Customers, question 11.1.  
33  Responses to Questionnaire s to Customers, question 11.1.  
34  Responses to Questionnair es to Competitors, question 10.1.  
 
6 indicated that they can supply packaging made from at least two different resins.35 
However, there are also limitations on the supply -side substitutability with regards 
to end -use. Some competitors submit that s witching  a production line from  one 
type of end-use to another one require s changing  the tool and depending on the 
specific application,  it could  lead to significant costs.36   
(21) It is therefore the case that, while there is some demand -and-supply -side 
substitutability between rigid plastic packagin g segmented by end -use, there are 
clear limitations to this substitutability, which could support the definition of  
separate product market s.  
(22) In any event, for the purposes of this decision the  question whether a definition of 
separate product markets by end-use is appropriate can be left open , since in all 
plausible  market definitions considered, the Proposed Transaction does not raise 
concerns as to its compatibility with the internal market or any part thereof.  
3.1.1.3.4.  Further segmentation of rigid plastic pack aging for food by resin type  
(23) With regards to a possible further segmentation of rigid plastic packaging by resin 
type, there is a degree of demand -side substitutability. On the demand -side, the 
market investigation points to the fact that customers generally source more than 
one type of resin for a given end -use, and that they  would be able in some cases 
to switch a product with a given resin -type to another .37 In particular, one customer 
explained that it is ‘[m]ost of the times substitutable by at least one other resin 
type’.38 Competitors have similarly indicated that, for a given end -use, it is possible 
in some or most cases, to substitute one type of resin for another.39  
(24) Nevertheless, this substitutability is limited. On the demand side, f or examp le, only 
certain types of resins can be used in a microwave or in the oven.  In this context, 
one customer submitted that ‘ [t]his is all depending on the properties needed for 
micro and oven’ .40 A competitor has stated that ‘[i] t depends on the end -use (cold  
use, hot use, sealable,  [...]’.41 Furthermore, different resins present different 
characteristics in terms of price, recyclability, technical characteristics such as heat 
resistance, and so on.42  
(25) On the supply side, m anufacturers  of rigid plastic packaging  have some ability to 
switch between different resins, but have differing levels of expertise and are 
limited by having to avoid cross -contami nation across production lines.43 In this 
context, one competitor stated that ‘[d] ifferent resins require different  types of 
molds and production processes ’.44 Another competitor similarly stated that ‘ [t]o 
switch to another resin only involves using a different roll of sheet. However many 
                                                 
35  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, questions 14 and 15.  
36  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question s 12.1 and 12.1.1.  
37  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, questions 13 and 15.  
38  Responses to Questionnair es to Customers, question 13.1.  
39  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question 13.  
40  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 13.1.  
41  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question 13.1.  
42  Responses to Questionna ires to Customers, question 17; responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, 
question 17.  
43  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question 12.2.1; Form CO, para 129. 
44  Responses to Questionnaires to Competitors, question 12.2.1.  
 
7 tools are specific to a certain type of resin. Some resins behave differently whe n 
heated, and therefore sheets of different resins are not always interchangeable ’.45 
(26) It is therefore the case that, while there is some demand -side substitutability 
between rigid plastic packaging segmented by resin type, there are clear limitations 
to thi s substitutability, which could lead to a separate product market definition.  
(27) In any event, for the purposes of this decision the  question whether a definition of 
separate product markets by resin type is appropriate can be left open , since in all 
plausib le market definitions considered, the Proposed Transaction does not raise 
concerns as to its compatibility with the internal market or any part thereof.   
3.1.1.3.5.  Further segmentation  of rigid plastic packaging for food by production 
method  
(28) With regards to a possib le further segmentation of rigid plastic packaging 
by production method, the market investigation indicates that ther e exists some 
demand -side substitutability. On the demand side, a majority of customers have 
indicated that it is sometimes possible to swi tch from a  rigid plastic packaging  
product produced with one production method to another.46 In this context, a 
customer submits that ‘ [m]ethod - different methods, differen t possibilities to get 
shape of  packaging ’.47  
(29) However, market participants have indicated that there exist different 
characteristics per technology. For example, Thermoforming is generally cheaper 
than Injection moulding: one customer stated that ‘ [y]ou can change but 
thermoforming is most of the time the chea pest, so if [Thermoforming]  fits for your 
application, you will not change to another one ’.48 Injection moulding, on the other 
hand, is better suited to large production runs, and , allows for a greater range 
of decoration methods.49  
(30) With regard s to supply -side substitutability, a majority of competitors have stated 
that they would not be able to rapidly  adapt their production lines from one 
technology to the other . Indeed, one competitor stated that such a move would 
require ‘ […] new machines and time to obt ain them ’,50 and another that ‘ […] if you 
don't have available capacities it means investments  and this takes between 6 and 
12 months ’.51 
(31) It is therefore the case that, while there is some demand - and supply -side 
substitutability between rigid plastic packaging segmented by production method , 
there are clear limitations to this substitutability, which could lead to a separate 
product market definition.  
(32) In any event, for the purposes of this decision th e question of whether a definition 
of separate product markets by production method is appropriate can be left open , 
                                                 
45  Responses to Que stionnaires to Competitors, question 12.2.1.   
46  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 14.  
47  Responses to Questionnaire s to Customers, question 12.1.  
48  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 14.1.  
49  Responses to Questionnaires to Customers, question 18.  
50  Responses to Questionnaires to  Competitors, question 12.3.1.  
51  Responses to Questionnaires to  Competitors, question 12.3.1.  
 
8 since in all plausible  market definitions considered, the Proposed Transaction does 
not raise concerns as to its compatibility with the int ernal market or any part 
thereof.  
3.1.1.3.6.  Conclusion  
(33) In view of the considerations outlined in Section 3.1.1 , it appears that the market 
for the production and supply of rigid plastic packaging for food could be further 
sub-segmented by resin type, production method, and intended end -use. 
Nevertheless, this question can be left open, as regardless the Proposed Transaction 
does not raise concerns as to its compatibility wit h the internal market or any part 
thereof.  
3.1.2.  PET resin  
(34) In previous decisions , the Commission has considered PET resin to be a separate 
product market, which could potentially be sub -segmented into bottle grade, fibre 
grade and film grade, but ultimately left the exact product market definition open.52 
(35) The question whether the relevant market compr ises any type of PET resi n or 
a distinction should be made between bottle grade, fibre grade and film grade can 
be left open in the present case because the Proposed Transaction does not raise 
concerns as to its compatibility with the internal market or any part thereof, 
regardles s of the answer to that question.  
3.1.3.  Extruded plastic sheets  
(36) In relation to food, e xtruded plastic sheets are used in the Thermoforming  or Form, 
Fill and Seal  process of producing rigid plastic packaging products.  [Non -public 
strategic decision] . The Commissi on has not considered extruded plastic sheets  in 
any previous decisions . [Faerch ’s internal  classifi cation] . 
(37) For the purpose of this decision, the question whether the relevant market 
comprises all extruded plastic sheets or a distinction should be made be tween 
different types of extruded plastic sheets, can be left open because the Proposed 
Transaction does not raise concerns as to its compatibility with the internal market 
or any part thereof, regardless of the answer to that question.  
3.2. Relevant geographic  markets  
3.2.1.  Rigid plastic packaging  
3.2.1.1.  The Commission’s past practice  
(38) In previous decisions the Commission has generally considered the relevant 
geographic market for (plastic) packaging to be EEA -wide or wider.53 
                                                 
52  Commission decisions of 18 March 2016 in case M.7918 - Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque 
Polyest er, paras. 29 -33, and of 11 June 2015 in case M.7484 - Plastipak/APPE, paras. 12 -15. 
53  See Commission's decision of 25 March 2011 in Case M.6128 - Blackstone/Mivisa, paras. 20 -22; of 
11 February 2019 in Case M.9094 - Amcor/Bemis, paras. 68 -70; of 25 Augus t 2016 in Case M.8107 - 
CVC/AR Packaging, para. 14; of 14 December 2009 in Case M.5599 - Amcor/Alcan, para. 47; and of 
29 August 2012 in Case M.6668 – Mondi/Nordenia, paras. 20 -21. 
 
9 (39) In relation to rigid plastic packaging specifically, the Commission in a previous 
decision noted that while there is a trend towards pan -European sourcing, ‘ the 
markets are presently largely national or regional ’ (due to importance of local 
presence and supply reliability).54 The exact geographi c market definition was left 
open. In another previous decision related to rigid plastic packaging, 
the Commission found a ‘ strong indication that the geographic market is not 
European -wide ’ but rather narrower, due to sign ificant transport costs and 
the ‘economical transportation distance [being] max. 1000 km within Western 
Europe ’.55 The exact geographic market definition was also left open.  
3.2.1.2.  The Notifying Party’s view  
(40) The Notifying Party puts forward the argument that the relevant geographic market 
(for t he whole packaging industry and for rigid plastic packaging in particular) is 
EEA-wide. The Notifying Party in this context submits that  there are no significant 
barriers for cross -border sales within the EEA (harmonized regulatory framework, 
low transport  costs) and that the Parties serve customers across borders. Further, 
there are no appreciable national or local customer preferences which can impede a 
manufacturer’s ability to compete for customers in other member states . In fact, it 
is often feasible to supply rigid plastic packaging even beyond distances of 1000  
km. Generally, the production sites of the Notifying Parties supply both customers 
in the country in whi ch they are located, and customers in other European count ries 
– customers therefore source rigid plastic packaging across borders.  
3.2.1.3.  The Commission’s assessment  
(41) Based on the market investigation, it appears that in line with the considerations 
from preceding  decisions, the relevant geographic market i s likely narr ower than 
EEA-wide, but wider than national.  Both customers and competitors describe a 
number of factors that limit their ability to source or supply rigid plastic packaging 
for food over very long distances in the EEA. Nevertheless, market participants 
consider the relevant geographic scope for sourcing or supplying rigid plastic 
packaging for food to be wider than national.  
3.2.1.3.1.  Factors that determine the transport distance  of rigid plastic packaging  
(42) Considering which factors are important in determining the d istance at which they 
can procure rigid plastic packaging, customers name security of supply as the most 
important, followed by transport costs and environmental consider ations. 
The proximity of suppliers for aftersales services and national customer 
prefe rences play less important roles.56 One customer explains in this context that 
‘[s]ecurity of fast enough supply at an affordable transport cost is essential for our 
competitiveness ’.57 Another customer submits: ‘ Our factory stops if we do not have 
trays in time. We can't have huge stocks, so fluent incoming flow of trays is vital. 
Environmental issues are [be]coming more important and usage of gas trucks etc. 
                                                 
54  Commission decision of 23 September 1999 in Case M.1656 - Huhtamäki Oyj/ Royal Packaging 
Industries Van Leer NV, paras. 21 -23. 
55  Commission decision of 1 February  1999 in Case M.1400 - Rexam/PLM, paras. 20 -22. 
56  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 27.  
57  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 27.1.  
 
10 methods that are better for environment is rising ’.58 A further customer explains 
that ‘ transport is important as price is. But environmental considerations are also 
crucial to our customers and us ’.59 
(43) Suppliers provide a similar ranking of factors that determine the distance at which 
they are able to sell rigid plastic packaging.60 A competitor to the Part ies explains 
that as it works ‘ for the foods industry it is always essential to secure supply but 
transport costs are also very crucial in such a price sensitive market ’.61 Another 
supplier explains that the reason why it does ‘ not […]ship products for a distance 
longer than 500 km is that although the packaging products are quite lightweight, 
they take a lot of space in a truck. The products have to be stacked one on top of 
the other and always to have distance between them because oth erwise it would not 
be convenient and easy for the customer to unstack them. Customers order these 
products in quantities of millions of units, so [the Company]  has to hire many 
trucks for their transportation. In addition, climate conditions can affect th e quality 
of the products, since high temperatures in the truck for long hours can alter the 
composition of the plastic product ’.62 
(44) These considerations show that transport distance is clearly a factor of importance 
for market participants. The need to ensu re a steady and secure supply of rigid 
plastic packaging for food for example limits customer’s options in terms of the 
distance from which they source.  
(45) While transport costs are not very high, they are nevertheless a relevant 
consideration of market parti cipants. Transport costs are estimated by market 
participants expressing a view to be in the range of 4 -10% on average.63 However, 
transport costs vary. As one customer explains: ‘ Prices are varying a lot based on 
how many trays go for a pallet. We pay tran sportation based per pallet quantity. 
Only full trucks, 50 pallets on each trailer ’.64 Another customer explains that 
transport costs ‘ depend  […] on weight, # products per shipment, # shipments / 
year, distance between sites ’.65 
3.2.1.3.2.  Typical geographic scope of r igid plastic packaging sales and purchases  
(46) A majority  of customers expressing their view submit s that the average transport 
distance of rigid plastic packaging is 500  km or less.66 One customer in this context 
explains that it has ‘ 2 suppling factories quit e close by and one is far from us, 
so the average would be 500 or less ’.67 Similarly, a majority of competitors 
expressing their view submits that the distance at which their factories deliver 80% 
of their annual sales of rigid plastic packaging for food is  500 km, while some 
suppliers also indicate that the respective radius for them is up to 1000  km or even 
                                                 
58  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 27.1.  
59  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 27.1.  
60  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 31.  
61  Response to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 31.1.  
62  Minutes of a call  with a competitor, 2 June 2022.  
63  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 26, and responses to Questionnaire to 
Competitors, question 30.  
64  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 26.1.  
65  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, que stion 26.1.  
66  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 23.  
67  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 23.1.  
 
11 wider .68 In this context , a competitor explains that it ‘ has a local footprint, meaning 
it supplies customers in a relatively small distance from its production facilities. 
The reason behind this is the transport cost efficiency. It is not efficient and 
sustainable for the Company to ship a product for more than 500 -600 km. Further 
shipments would not be efficient because the transport cost would become  a too 
high % of the total product cost ’.69 Another competitor submits that ‘[t] he average 
transport distance from plants to customers varies significantly and depends on the 
packaging format, however it is common to transport rigid plastic packaging over 
hundreds of km. At the extreme end of the range, the minimum economic transport 
distance will still be circa 300  km, as plastic packaging is typically a very small 
component of overall end product cost ’.70 The Notifying Parties themselves 
indicate distances at which their plants sell 80% of their rigid plastic packaging 
output in the EEA  of between [<500] km and [>1000] km, depending on the plant 
(with the average appearing to be around [500-1000]  km).71 
(47) The above -mentioned distances appear to indicate that th e geographic al market 
may be wider than national, but is likely narrower than EEA -wide. This is further 
confirmed by  the majorit y of customers and competitors expressing their view 
indicating that they procure or sell 41% or more of their rigid plastic p ackaging on 
a regional level in  the EEA (i.e. Northern Europe, Central Europe, etc.). Only very 
few customers and competitors indicate that they procure or sell meaningful 
quantities of rigid plastic packaging for food from/to an area that is outside  their 
respective region of the  EEA (i.e. Northern Europe, Central Europe, etc.).72 
(48) This reg ional geographic outlook of market participants is further confirmed when 
they are asked to consider the area in which they are able to replace the los s of 
a supplier or a c ustomer. A large majority of customers expressing their view 
submit that if their current source of rigid plastic pack aging supply would no longer 
be available, the geographical area in which they could relatively quickly and 
without incurring significant costs find a new supplier is the regional level in the 
EEA (i.e.  Northern Europe, Central Europe, etc.).73 Most sup pliers expressing 
a view on the question in what geographical area they could quickly and without 
incurring significant costs typically find a new customer if they lose an existing 
one, submit that they could do so at the national level or the regional level in 
the EEA (i.e.  Northern Eur ope, Central Europe, etc.).74 
3.2.1.3.3.  Conclusion  
(49) Based on the considerations in Section 3.2.1 , it appears that a  catchment area -based 
geographic market definition would be m ost appropriate.  Customers clearly 
regularly consider suppliers that are located outside of the country  in which their 
plant is located, while generally being limited ( e.g. by considerations of supply 
security, transport costs and environmental considerati ons), to sourcing  
                                                 
68  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 27.  
69  Response to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 27.1.  
70  Minu tes of a call with a Competitor, 20 June 2022.  
71  See Form CO, table 13 and Form CO, Annex PRFI4 -Q4.ii.  
72  Responses to Question naire to Customers, question 24, and responses to Questionnaire to 
Competitors, question 28.  
73  Responses to Questionnaire to C ustomers, question 28.  
74  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 32.  
 
12 predominantly  on a regional basis within the EEA. Similarly, most suppliers 
indicate that they supply 80% of their output in a radius of up to 500  km, while this 
radius is somewhat larger for some further suppliers.  Both customers and sup pliers 
indicate that the scop e of their purchasing/supply is  broader than national, but does 
not cover the whole EEA. Therefore, catchment areas of a  size between 500  
and1000  km appear  to likely be the most appropriate.  
(50) However, given th is relatively large  size of the likely catchment areas and 
the Notifying Party’s inability to provide market shares  on a catchment area basis, 
the competitive assessment will be undertaken at national basis  as the narrowest 
plausible level (as these catchment areas would in any case cover entire countries 
or at the very least very large parts of any concerned country in the EEA) . In any 
case, a s the Proposed Transaction does not raise concerns as to its compatibility 
with the internal market even on the narrowest plausible ge ographic market 
definition (national), the exact definition of the relevant geographic market in this 
case can be left open.  
3.2.2.  PET resin  
(51) In previous decisions, the Commission has consi dered the geographic market 
for PET resin to be EEA -wide or wider, but ultimately left the exact scope open.75 
Similarly, in the present case,  the exact scope of the relevant geographic market 
can be left open because the Proposed Transaction does not raise concerns as to its 
compatibility with the internal market regardless of the exact geographic market 
definition.  
3.2.3.  Extruded plastic sheets  
(52) The Commission has not previously considered the relevant geographic market 
for extruded plastic sheets. The Notifying Party submits that the relevant 
geographic market is wider than EEA -wide and likely worldwide in scope.76 In the 
present case, the exact scope of the relevant geographic market can be left open 
because the Proposed Transaction does not raise concerns as to its compatibility 
with the internal market regardless of the exact geog raphic market definition.   
4. COMPE TITIVE ASSE SSME N T 
4.1. Horizontal affected markets: Rigid plastic packaging for food  
4.1.1.  Introduction  
(53) The Proposed Transaction gives rise to plausible h orizontally affected markets 
in rigid plastic packaging for food.77 As the Notifying Party was not able to provide 
                                                 
75  Commission decisions of 18 March 2016 in case M.7918 - Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque 
Polyester, paras. 34 -36, and of 11 June 2015 in case M.7484 - Plastipak/APPE, para s. 30-32. 
76  Form CO, para 280.  
77  Generally, no affected plausible markets arise with respect to rigid plastic packaging for non -food, 
with the exception of one plausible market (rigid plastic packaging for non -food by T hermoforming 
in France). However, t he Notifying Party has  confirmed that there are n umerous players able to 
supply T hermoformed products into France at similar conditions to the Parties ( Reply  to RFI 7, 
question 8). Within France, there are numerous competitors’ production plants, and large  parts of 
France can plausibly be supplied by competitors located in neighbouring countries near the border 
 
 
13 market shares at catchment area -level, affected markets will be conservatively 
assessed at national level as the narrowest plausible markets (as explained above, 
catchment areas in the present case would be r elatively large and therefore cover 
entire countries or at the very least very large parts of any concerned country in the 
EEA). At national level, the plausible rigid plastic packaging for food markets will 
be assessed according to (i) end -use application , (ii) production methods, and 
(iii) resin type.  
4.1.2.  Market shares  
(54) At the EEA -level, combined market shares of the Parties do not give rise to any 
plausible affected market in rigid plastic packaging for food (the market shares 
reach only [0-5]%) or in any sub -segment thereof.  
(55) Considering the conservative approach outlined above and the Parties’ combined 
market shares at the narrowest plausible  level, i.e. the national level, the only 
affected national market in rigid plastic packaging for food overall would ar ise in 
Denmark ( [20-30]% combined market share with a [5-10]%-point  increment 
stemming from Paccor).  
(56) When considering further plausible sub-segments  of rigid plastic packaging 
for food at national level (i.e. by end -use applications, production methods, or  resin 
type), there are 26 additional affected markets based on volume shares and  in 
addition to them  four affected markets  that are only based on value shares.  
(57) Seven  of the 30 plausible affected markets have an  increment of below 1% -point . 
In the ‘Fresh Meat’ sub -segment of the Danish market for rigid plastic packaging 
for food, the Parties have a combined share of [40-50]% with an increment from 
Paccor of below 0.1% -point . In the ‘Food Service’  sub-segment of the Danish 
market, the Parties have a combine d share of [20-30]% with an increment from 
Paccor of [<1]%-point . In the ‘PP’ sub-segment of the Fi nnish market,  the Parties 
have a combined share of [20-30]% with an increment from Faerch of [<1]%-point . 
In the ‘PS’ sub-segment of the Fi nnish market,  the Parties have a combined share 
of [20-30]% with an increment from Faerch of [<1]%-point  (Finland ‘PS’ is 
affected only based on value shares). In the ‘Ready Meals ( micro only)’  sub-
segment of the Lithuanian market,  the Parties have a combined share of [20-30]% 
with an in crement from Faerch of [<1]%-point . In the ‘Fresh Meat’ sub-segment of 
the Lithuanian market, the Parties have a combined share of [20-30]% with 
an increment from Faerch of [<1]%-point . In the ‘PP’ sub-segment of the 
Lithuanian market, the Parties have a combined share of [20-30]% with an 
increment from Faerch of [<1]%-point . All the affected markets in  Lithuania are 
value -based . In relation to these seven  plausible affected markets, it appears that 
the Proposed Transaction is unlikely to  have a significant negative impact on 
competition . This is because  the increment created by the Proposed Transaction is 
                                                                                                                                                      
(for each of the Parties’ plants located in France, assuming a conservative catchment area of 500 km, 
there are at least 50 competitors’ plants with in the catchment area – Annex RFI 8 -Q1.ii & Annex RFI 
8-Q1.i). This is further supported by competitors: of those competitors responding to the market 
investigation , six have plants in France, a majority compete wit h the Parties in T hermoforming, 
(Response s to Questionnaire to Competitors, questions 3 and 35.3), and the Parties’ overall share of 
rigid plastic packaging for non -food in France is below 5%. There are therefore no competition 
concerns related to this plausible affected market.  

 
15 4.1.3.  The Part ies’ activities in rigid  plastic packaging for food are larg ely 
comple mentary  
(60) The Parties’ activities in rigid plastic packa ging for food are largely 
comple mentary, as Faerch and Paccor at present focus their activities on different 
sub-segments of rigid plastic packaging for food.  
(61) As seen in table Table 1 above, in most plausible affected markets , the increment 
created by the Proposed Transaction is r elatively small.  In cases where a 
meaningful increment of m ore than 5% is created (i.e.  in Food overall – Denmark, 
Ready Meals ( micro only) – Belgium, Ready Meals ( micro only) – Poland, Fresh 
Meat – Poland, Thermoforming – Belgium, Thermoforming – Estonia,  
Thermoforming – Sweden, APET – Belgium, APET – Estonia, APET – Latvia, 
APET – Netherlands, PP – Denmark) the combined market share of the Parties 
remains moderate (below 35%).  
(62) By contrast, in cases where the combined market share of the Parties is at or a bove 
35% (i.e. in Ready Meals ( micro only) – Netherlands, Fresh Meat – Finland, Fresh 
Meat – Sweden, Thermoforming – Denmark, Thermoforming – Finland, APET – 
Denmark), the increment created by the Proposed Transaction remai ns at 
or below  5%. 
(63) This complemen tarity is mostly due to the Parties’ differing focus. The Notifying 
Party in this context submits that ‘ the Parties do not meet each other in the day -to-
day competition, and they consequently do not consider themselves close 
competitors ’.80 As can be seen i n Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, the Parties have a 
different focus  both by  end-application (Paccor has a significant focus on Dairy, 
where Faerch currently only has a minor presence) and by resin types ( [strategic 
information on the Parties’ respective resin focuses] ). Considering production 
methods , it should be noted that [strategic information on the Parties’ available 
production technologies] . 
Figure 1 – Comparison of the Parties’ EEA -wide 2021 sales split according to end -use 
[Confidential information on the Parties’ allocation of sales and production of rigid plastic 
packaging]  
Source: Form CO, Figure 31.  
Figure 2 – Comparison of the Parties’ EEA -wide 2021 sales split according to resin 
type 
[Confidential information on the Parties’ allocation of sales and production  of rigid plastic 
packaging ] 
Source: Form CO, Figure 32.  
(64) Market participants confirm that the Parties are not particularly close competitors.  
While one customer states that ‘[a] few years ago we did a big tender for trays and 
they both Faerch and Paccor di d participate, if they go together, that means that 
there will be less competition ’,81 another customer submits that as far as it knows 
                                                 
80  Form CO, para 367. 
81  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 37.  
 
16 ‘Faerch and Paccor are mainly producing complementary product ranges ’.82 Yet 
another customer states that ‘ they are not competitors for the products 
we purchase ’.83 A further customer explains: ‘ I do not consider them close 
competitors. They have some overlaps as fresh food and other, but it does not seem 
as they compete much ’.84 Another customer states that it does ‘ not purchase 
anything from Paccor today, know them only by name, so currently I don't consider 
them as close competitors ’.85 A further customer explains that ‘ Paccor is strong 
in injection moulding, and in PP -based plastic p ackaging. Faerch is stronger 
in PET-packaging ’.86 
(65) Similarly, a  competitor explains that ‘ Paccor’s production range of rigid plastic 
packaging for food is wide ’, while ‘ Faerch is more  focused on a narrower range 
of products compared to Paccor and [the Company]’.87 A further competitor 
‘considers  that Faerch, contrary to Paccor, is less focused on dairy packaging. 
However, Faerch is currently growing the dairy business and the separation 
between the segments is not so strict. Dairy customers usually have also other 
products and for example, they b uy food -service products as well ’.88 
(66) Therefore, based on the generally relatively small market share increments, the 
different end -use and resin focuses of the Parties, and the view s of market 
participants, it appears that the Parties are not co mpeting part icularly closely 
in rigid plastic packaging for food generally or in any of the plausible affected 
markets.  
4.1.4.  Competitors will continue to constrain the Merged Entity  
(67) Post-Transaction, competitors will continue to constrain the Merged Entity, 
generally in ri gid plastic packaging for food, and in all the affected potential 
markets.  
(68) The Notifying Party submits that the ‘ EEA rigid plastic packaging market 
comprises several large pan -European players, in addition  to which there are 
in almost all segments several strong local or regional players present ’.89 It further 
states that there are ‘ (and will remain post -merger) several strong and effective 
competitors that will act as a competitive restraint to the combined entity ’.90 
According to the Notifying Party, Faerch ’s and Paccor’s main competitors across 
the EEA are: Linpacc/KP, Guillin, Pluspack, Hordijk, Etimex, Magic Pack (Gruppo 
Happy), RPC Berry, Nutripack (Impact Group), KGL/Marcato, Quinn/Polycasa/3A 
Composites, Greiner, Arta Plast AB, GIZEH Verpackungen GmbH,  Alpla Werke 
Alwin Lehner GmbH & Co KG, and EstPakPlastik AS.  
                                                 
82  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 37.  
83  Courtesy translation. The original Dutch reads ‘ voor de producten die wij aankopen zijn zij geen 
concurrenten ’. Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 37.  
84  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 37.  
85  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 37.  
86  Minutes of a call with a cust omer, 18 May 2022.  
87  Minutes of a call with a competitor, 20 June 2022.  
88  Minutes of a call with a competitor, 2 June 2022.  
89  Form CO, para 360.  
90  Form CO, para 362.  
 
17 (69) The Parties appear to be competing again st numerous competitors in  all affected 
potential rigid plastic packaging for food markets.  In all plausible affected markets 
presented above in Table 1, at least three competitors submit that they currently 
supply the rig id plastic packaging product in  question in that country .  Further, in 
all plausible affected markets presented in Table 1, at least three competitors 
submit that they could easily start supplying the rigid plastic packaging product in 
question in that cou ntry (with the only exceptions being APET – The Netherlands, 
APET – Norway, and APET – Sweden, where two competitors submit that they 
could easily start supplying APETs. However,  in each of these countries, at  least 
seven competitors of the Parties submit that they currently already supply APET 
rigid plastic packaging).91 
(70) Therefore, the Parties are facing actual and potential competition from a significant 
number of competitors across all affected potential rigid plastic packaging for food 
markets.  
(71) Furthermo re, a majority of the competitor s expressing their view submit that their 
current production capacity utilisation for rigid pl astic packaging for food in 
the EEA is at 80% or lower.92 Therefore, competitors in principle also have the 
ability to address addi tional demand (e.g. of customers wishing to switch away 
from the Merged Entity). This is confirmed by a significant number of competitors 
that state that they could in a short matter of time and without incurring significant 
costs increase their sales of r igid plastic packaging for food.93 One competitor 
explains in this context that ‘[o] nce installed capac ity is in place, production 
can be increased immediately. Only new tooling (i.e. for a new packaging shape) 
may be required, which can be obtained in a sh ort lead time ’.94 
(72) In this context, a majority of competitors expressing their view also indicate that 
they consider it very easy or somewhat easy for customers to switch their suppliers 
of rigid plastic packaging for food.95 
(73) Therefore, competitors will be able to continue to c onstrain the Merged Entity 
post Transaction.  
4.1.5.  Customers of rigid plastic packaging for food  will continue to have sufficient 
choice  
(74) Post-Transaction, customers of rigid plastic pack aging for food will continue 
to have sufficient choice and access to a significant number of alternative suppliers.  
(75) The majority of customers expressing a view submit that they have more than three 
suppliers of rigid plastic packaging materials across the EEA overall.96 
(76) Importantly, when considering alternative s (to Faerch and Paccor)  that customers 
have access to in each of the affected plausible markets presented in Table 1, 
customers generally indicate that there are vari ous alternatives. In most of 
                                                 
91  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 36.  
92  Responses to Question naire to Competitors, question 40.  
93  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 41.  
94  Response to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 41.1.  
95  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 42.  
96  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers , question 31.  
 
18 the affected plausible markets, a majority of customers that are active in the 
respective market s indicate that they have access to at least two or more alternative 
suppliers.97 In the remaining affected plausible markets (where  only few customers 
responded and/or some customers indicated that they only have access to limited 
alternatives), a significant number of competitors of the Parties indicated that they 
either presently supply the rigid plastic packa ging product in questio n in 
the country concerned or could easily start supplying  it.98 Similarly, a large 
majority of competitors expressing their view submit that customers have sufficient 
alternative suppliers of rigid plastic packaging fo r food available to them 
in all countr ies/regions of the EEA so that they could switch away from their 
current suppliers.99 
(77) The availability of su ppliers alternative to Faerch and Paccor is  further confirmed 
by both customers and competi tors indicating - that across the  EEA - a significant 
numb er of capable suppliers of rigid plastic packaging for food (in all the plausible 
sub-segments by end -use application, resin type and production method) are 
active.100 
(78) These alternative suppliers appear to constitute a credible alternative to Faerch and 
Paccor, because customers seem to in principle be able to switch suppliers. While 
customers generally do not consider switching of suppliers to be particularly 
easy,101 most customers report that they have changed supplier of rigid plastic 
packaging for food  in the past five years at least once (with some indicating more 
frequent supplier changes).102  
(79) Therefore, customers of rigid plastic packaging for food will continue to have 
sufficient choice and access to a significant number of current or potential 
alternative suppliers across all affected potential markets across the EEA.  
4.1.6.  The Proposed Transaction is unlikely to have a significant impact  
(80) The Proposed Transaction is unlikely to have a significant impact on competition 
in the various plausible affected  markets within the EEA .  
(81) The only affected plausible markets presented in Table 1 in which a majority 
of competitors  expressing their view submit that they consider the Proposed 
Transaction to have a negative impact on competition are Thermoforming – 
Belgium, Dairy – Denmark, and Thermoforming – Denmark.103 However , 
in all affected plausible markets presented in Table 1, a majority of customers  
expressing their view consider that the Proposed  Transaction will have either 
a positive or a neutral impact on competition – including in the aforementioned 
markets for Thermoforming in Belgium, Dairy in Denmark, and Thermoforming  in 
Denmark.104 In this context, while one customer states that ‘[t] here will be limited 
                                                 
97  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 36.  
98  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 36.  
99  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 44.  
100  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 35, and responses to Questionnaire to 
Competitors, question 34.  
101  Responses to Questionnaire to Customer, question 41.  
102  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 40.  
103  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 45.  
104  Responses to Questionnair e to Customers, question 43.  
 
19 competition which is likely to have an impact on cost ’,105 another customer 
submits: ‘ Don’t see negative impact as we have mul tiple alternatives ’.106 Yet 
another customer submits: ‘ There remain enough other market players , although 
smaller, to keep the  pressure on Faerch / Paccor to keep a competitive price 
level ’.107 
(82) When considering the impact of the Proposed Transaction on their o wn compan ies, 
in the different sub -segments of end -use application, resin type and production 
method, competitors  offer a mixed view. With respect to end -use application, 
a majority of competitors expressing their view exp ects a positive or no impact 
on their own company for Ready Meals ( micro only), Ready Meals ( oven 
heatable), and Other, while a majority expects a negative impact on their own 
company for Food -To-Go and Food Service (with the  results being inconclusive 
for Fresh Meat and Dairy).108 With resp ect to resin type, a majority of competitors 
expressing their view s expect a positive or no impact on their own company 
for APET, CPET, PS, PVC, XPS/EPS and Other, while the results for PP  were 
inconclusive.109 With respect to production method, a majority of competitors 
expressing their view expect a negative impac t on their own company only 
for Thermoforming (the only production method in which Faerch and Paccor 
overlap).110 
(83) Even though a majority of competitors  claim to expect a negative impact on their 
company for Food -To-Go, Food Service and Thermoforming , clear majorities of 
customers  expressing their view fo r all plausible sub -segments by  end-use 
application, resin type and production method report that they  expect the Proposed 
Transaction to have a positive or neutral impact on their own company.111 
(84) Considering the impact of the Proposed Transactio n on the parameter of price 
for the supply of rigid plastic packaging for food in the EEA, majorities of both 
customers and competitors expressing their view subm it that there will be either 
no effect or a decrease. Considering the impact on quality and on innovation, 
majorities of both customers and competitors ex pressing their view submit 
that there will be either n o effect or an increase. Consi dering the impact on choice, 
a majority of competitors expressing their v iew submit that there will be 
a decrease, while a majority of customers submit that there will be either no effect 
or an increase.112 
(85) The fact that, in any  plausible affected market, customers have expressed that the 
Proposed Transaction will not have a negative impact on their activities, supports 
the overall findings above that the Proposed Transaction is unlikely to have a 
significant negative impact on c ompetition in any of the plausible affected markets.  
(86) Conclusion  
                                                 
105  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 43.1.  
106  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 43.1.  
107  Response to Questionnaire to Customers, question 43.1.  
108  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, questio n 46. 
109  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 47.  
110  Responses to Questionnaire to Competitors, question 48.  
111  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, questions 44 -46. 
112  Responses to Questionnaire to Customers, question 48, and responses to Questionnaire to 
Competitors, question 50.  
 
20 (87) In light of the considerations in Section 4.1, the Commission conclu des that 
the Proposed Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with 
the internal market in relation to the manufacturing and supply of rigid plastic 
packaging for food and any plausible sub -segment thereof . 
4.2. Vertical  links  
(88) In light of the market definitions considered above, the Proposed Transaction gives 
rise to  the following vertical links between the Parties:  
(a) The production and sale of PET resin  (upstream ), and the production and sale 
of rigid plastic packaging  for food (downstream) ; 
(b) The production and sale of extruded  plastic sheets (upstream), and 
the production and sale of rigid plastic packaging for food (downstream).  
4.2.1.  PET resin  
(89) Faerch is active in the pr oduction and sale of PET resin , with ve ry limited market 
shares o f <[0-5]% at the EEA level .113 Both of the parties are  active in the 
production and sale of  rigid plastic packaging for food. This vertical relationship 
may therefore give rise to vertically affected markets.  
(90) However, t he Notifying Party has  explained that, [strategic information regarding 
Faerch’s production and sale of PET resin] .114 115 116 117 
(91) For these reasons, [strategic information regarding Faerch’s production and sale of 
PET resin ], the Proposed Transaction will not  lead to any vertical competition 
concerns in the form of either input or customer foreclosure.  
4.2.2.  Extruded plastic sheets  
(92) The Notifying Party  explain s that Faerch is active in the production and sale 
of extruded plastic sheets , with very limited market share s of < [0-5]% at the EEA 
level.118 Paccor is active in the production and sale  of rigid plastic packaging 
for food.  This vertical relationship may therefore give rise to vertically affected 
markets.  
(93) [Strategic information regarding Faerch’s production and sal e of extruded  plastic 
sheets] .119 120 121  
(94) For these reasons, [strategic information regarding Faerch’s production and  sale of 
extruded plastic sheets] , the Proposed Transaction will not lead to any vertical 
competition concerns  in the form of either input or  customer foreclosure.  
                                                 
113  Form CO, para 260.  
114  Form CO, para 547.  
115  Form CO, para 261.  
116  Form CO, Annex PRRFI1 -Q17-i. 
117  RFI 7 of 25 July 2022, reply to question 3.  
118  Form CO, para 267.  
119  Form CO, para 268.  
120  Form CO, para 547. 
121  Form CO, para 270; Annex PRFI1 -Q17.ii ; Annex PRFI1 -Q17.iii . 
 
21 5. CONCLUSION  
(95) For the above reasons, the European Commissio n has decided not to oppose 
the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal  market and with 
the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Ar ticle 6(1)(b ) of 
the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement .  
For the Commission  
 
 
(Signed)  
Margrethe VESTAGER  
Executive Vice-President