# C_2022303EN.01002201.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/22

---

Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by LATAM Airlines Group SA, Lan Cargo SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-344/17, Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission

(Case C-375/22 P)

(2022/C 303/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: LATAM Airlines Group SA, Lan Cargo SA (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, and W. Sparks, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it dismisses the action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it dismisses the action for annulment;

| — | annul the Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding 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 AT.39258 — Airfreight) (the Decision) insofar as it relates to the appellants. In the alternative, annul the Decision in part and reduce the fine imposed on the appellants to such an amount the Court sees fit; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding 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 AT.39258 — Airfreight) (the Decision) insofar as it relates to the appellants. In the alternative, annul the Decision in part and reduce the fine imposed on the appellants to such an amount the Court sees fit;

| — | in the alternative, if the Court finds it cannot give final judgment, refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Court finds it cannot give final judgment, refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | order the Commission to bear all costs of the proceedings before this Court and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear all costs of the proceedings before this Court and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on the following grounds of appeal:

The first ground of appeal relates to manifest errors of law when determining the legal consequences of upholding the first plea. Instead of proceeding to annul the Decision in its entirety, the General Court only partially annulled the Decision without assessing whether the elements for which the appellants were found not to be liable, are severable, despite clear case law defining this to be the relevant test.

The second ground of appeal relates to manifest errors of law when rejecting the sixth plea on rights of defence relating to the Commission’s failure to provide its reasoning why it did not pursue claims against other airlines and a service provider. Moreover, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence when assessing the e-mail of 22 July 2005 without taking into account that the key elements relied on by the General Court were actions by airlines against whom the Commission has dropped charges after the Statement of Objections.

The third ground of appeal relates to manifest errors in law when rejecting the third part of the fourth plea (first limb) in relation to the Commission’s jurisdiction to make certain findings.

The fourth ground of appeal relates to manifest errors in law when rejecting the third part of the fourth plea (second limb) in relation to the Decision’s ambiguity as regards to the geographical scope of the infringement.

---