# C_2021289EN.01004901.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/49

---

Action brought on 3 June 2021 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-313/21)

(2021/C 289/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark), Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden), SAS AB (Stockholm) (represented by: B. Creve, M. Kofmann, J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Order the European Union, represented by the European Commission:






  (a) | to pay to the applicants compensation in the sum of EUR 14 438 793,21 for the damage caused by the Commission’s failure to pay the correct interest amount on the reimbursed fine for the period between 15 February 2011 and 8 March 2016, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v Commission (Case T-56/11) or, failing that, a compensation amount for the time period and at the interest rate that the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Order the European Union, represented by the European Commission:

(a)

to pay to the applicants compensation in the sum of EUR 14 438 793,21 for the damage caused by the Commission’s failure to pay the correct interest amount on the reimbursed fine for the period between 15 February 2011 and 8 March 2016, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v Commission (Case T-56/11) or, failing that, a compensation amount for the time period and at the interest rate that the Court considers appropriate;

| (b) | To pay to the applicants interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the compensation referred to in point (a) from 8 March 2016 until payment in full, with the interest being simple interest until 4 February 2021 and compound interest from 5 February 2021, or, failing that, to pay interest on the compensation referred to in point (a) for the time period, at the interest rate and according to the calculation method (simple or compound) that the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

To pay to the applicants interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the compensation referred to in point (a) from 8 March 2016 until payment in full, with the interest being simple interest until 4 February 2021 and compound interest from 5 February 2021, or, failing that, to pay interest on the compensation referred to in point (a) for the time period, at the interest rate and according to the calculation method (simple or compound) that the Court considers appropriate.

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicants’ application for compensation for non-contractual damages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicants’ application for compensation for non-contractual damages.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay its costs and those of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay its costs and those of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to pay the applicants the correct amount of interest following the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case A.39258 — Airfreight).

In support of the action for annulment, the applicants rely on two pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by finding that the applicants’ claim for non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU was time-barred under Article 46 of the Statute. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by finding that the applicants’ claim for non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU was time-barred under Article 46 of the Statute.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by relying on Article 85a(2) of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 to reject the applicants’ request for compensation, in the situation where (i) Regulation No 2342/2002 was not applicable at the relevant time, and (ii) compliance with Article 90 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (and mutatis mutandis Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) does not relieve the Commission from its obligation to pay default interest in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by relying on Article 85a(2) of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 to reject the applicants’ request for compensation, in the situation where (i) Regulation No 2342/2002 was not applicable at the relevant time, and (ii) compliance with Article 90 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (and mutatis mutandis Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) does not relieve the Commission from its obligation to pay default interest in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

---