Judgment of the General Court Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition, 7 December 2022, CCPL and Others v Commission, T-130/21

• Date: 07 December 2022
• Year: 2022

35

condition that the person concerned must not serve the sentence in the issuing Member State for

those acts which do not constitute an offence in the executing Member State. The execution of the

EAW may be made subject only to one of the conditions exhaustively laid down in that framework

decision.

In addition, the Court states that interpreting the condition of double criminality of the act as meaning

that execution of the EAW may be refused on the ground that some of the elements of the offence in

the issuing Member State do not constitute an offence in the executing Member State would create

an obstacle to the effective surrender of the person concerned and would lead to the impunity of that

person for all the acts concerned. Accordingly, in such circumstances, that condition is met. Lastly, the

Court states that it is not for the executing judicial authority, when assessing the condition referred to

above, to assess the sentence handed down in the issuing Member State in the light of the principle

of proportionality of penalties.

3. COMPETITION

3.1. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

(Article 101 TFEU)

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition), 7 December

2022, CCPL and Others v Commission, T-130/21

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Retail food packaging – Decision

amending the amount of a fine – Calculation of the fine – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – 2006

Guidelines on the method for setting fines – Ceiling of the fine – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Ability

to pay

By decision of 24 June 2015,

78

the Commission imposed fines on five companies belonging to a group

of undertakings (‘the CCPL Group’) for having participated, with their competitors, in collusive

arrangements aimed at restricting competition on the European market for food packaging in

polystyrene and polypropylene trays. When the amount of the fines were set, those five companies

benefitted from a 25% reduction on account of their limited ability to pay.

The five undertakings sanctioned include Coopbox Group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. and CCPL –

Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (‘CCPL’), the parent company of the CCPL Group.

Against that background, CCPL was found to be liable for the anticompetitive conduct of its

subsidiaries Coopbox Group and Coopbox Eastern, which it owned through a third company, CCPL

SpA.

By its judgment of 11 July 2019,

79

the General Court annulled in part the 2015 Commission decision

on the basis that an inadequate statement of reasons had been provided in relation to the granting of

the 25% reduction based on the limited ability to pay of the undertakings concerned.

78

Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.39563 – Retail food packaging) (‘the 2015 Decision’).

79

Judgment of 11 July 2019, CCPL and Others v Commission (T-522/15, not published, EU:T:2019:500).