93In the context of the fifth plea, the applicant claims that Tomkins alone ought to have been held liable for the infringement. In support of that assertion, the applicant refers to Case T-6/89Enichem Anic v Commission [1991] ECR II-1623 and Case T-354/94Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [2002] ECR II-843. In the applicant’s submission, it follows from those judgments that the legal entity to be held accountable for the infringement is in principle the parent company of the group. It also follows from the case-law that the Commission is entitled only in exceptional circumstances to seek to impose liability for an infringement outside the relevant undertaking (Enichem Anic v Commission, paragraph 237).