# C_2012243EN.01003002.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/30

---

Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Panalpina Welttransport and Others v Commission

(Case T-270/12)

2012/C 243/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Panalpina Welttransport (Holding) AG (Basel, Switzerland), Panalpina Management AG (Basel, Switzerland) and Panalpina China Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis, T. Grimmer and B. Smith, Solicitors)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission Decision of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.462 — Freight Forwarding) in its entirety to the extent that it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.462 — Freight Forwarding) in its entirety to the extent that it applies to the applicants;

| — | In the alternative:






  — | insofar as the Court upholds the first and/or the second plea made by the applicants, modify Articles 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) of the Decision as they pertain to the applicants, so as to annul or in the alternative reduce the fine imposed on the applicants therein; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the alternative:

—

insofar as the Court upholds the first and/or the second plea made by the applicants, modify Articles 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) of the Decision as they pertain to the applicants, so as to annul or in the alternative reduce the fine imposed on the applicants therein;

| — | insofar as the Court upholds the applicants’ third plea, annul or modify Article 1(2)(f) of the Decision to reflect the reduced duration of the infringement, and consequentially modify Article 2(2) of the Decision as it pertains to the applicants, so as to annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants therein; and |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as the Court upholds the applicants’ third plea, annul or modify Article 1(2)(f) of the Decision to reflect the reduced duration of the infringement, and consequentially modify Article 2(2) of the Decision as it pertains to the applicants, so as to annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants therein; and

| — | insofar as the Court upholds the applicants’ fourth plea, modify Articles 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) of the Decision as it pertains to the applicants, so as to annul or in the alternative reduce the fine imposed on the applicants therein; and, in any event; |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as the Court upholds the applicants’ fourth plea, modify Articles 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) of the Decision as it pertains to the applicants, so as to annul or in the alternative reduce the fine imposed on the applicants therein; and, in any event;

| — | Order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission departed from its rules of practice, erred in law and breached its duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality in setting the basic amount of the fine by calculating the ‘value of sales’ relevant to the infringement on the basis of total sales to EEA customers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission departed from its rules of practice, erred in law and breached its duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality in setting the basic amount of the fine by calculating the ‘value of sales’ relevant to the infringement on the basis of total sales to EEA customers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission departed from its rules of practice, erred in law and breached its duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality in setting the basic amount of the fine by failing to take into account the particularities of the case and the nature of the industry in question (including the impact of the Air Cargo cartel). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission departed from its rules of practice, erred in law and breached its duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality in setting the basic amount of the fine by failing to take into account the particularities of the case and the nature of the industry in question (including the impact of the Air Cargo cartel).

Air Cargo

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by concluding that it had jurisdiction in respect of the advanced manifest system (‘AMS’) infringement prior to 1 May 2004. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by concluding that it had jurisdiction in respect of the advanced manifest system (‘AMS’) infringement prior to 1 May 2004.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission departed from its rules of practice by misapplying its discretion in relation to the settlement procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission departed from its rules of practice by misapplying its discretion in relation to the settlement procedure.

---