# C_2017239EN.01005301.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/53

---

Action brought on 29 May 2017 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-324/17)

(2017/C 239/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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 and G. Forwood, lawyers and J. Killick, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul 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), in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul 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), in whole or in part;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the level of the fine imposed in the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the level of the fine imposed in the applicants;

| — | adopt the requested measures of organization of procedure or measures of inquiry, or any other such measures as the Court deems necessary; and |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt the requested measures of organization of procedure or measures of inquiry, or any other such measures as the Court deems necessary; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicants’ right of defence and the principle of equality of arms, in refusing the applicants access to relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, including evidence which the Commission received after notification of its Statement of Objections. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicants’ right of defence and the principle of equality of arms, in refusing the applicants access to relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, including evidence which the Commission received after notification of its Statement of Objections.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a lack of competence with respect to the application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to airfreight services that were inbound into the EEA, as well as routes between Switzerland and the three non EU-EEA States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a lack of competence with respect to the application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to airfreight services that were inbound into the EEA, as well as routes between Switzerland and the three non EU-EEA States.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in the Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its conclusion that this proves the applicants’ participation in, or knowledge of, the global single and continuous infringement found in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in the Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its conclusion that this proves the applicants’ participation in, or knowledge of, the global single and continuous infringement found in the contested decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 266 TFEU, Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 296(2) TFEU in that the contested decision is internally inconsistent, in particular as regards the attribution of liability for the alleged infringement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 266 TFEU, Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 296(2) TFEU in that the contested decision is internally inconsistent, in particular as regards the attribution of liability for the alleged infringement.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission was wrong to impose any fine on the applicants, as they cannot be liable for the alleged infringement, and in any case the Commission erred in the fine calculation as regards the values of the sales, the gravity factor related to SAS Cargo’s particular situation, the duration, the recidivism uplift and the various mitigating circumstances; as such the fine should be annulled or alternatively significantly reduced. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission was wrong to impose any fine on the applicants, as they cannot be liable for the alleged infringement, and in any case the Commission erred in the fine calculation as regards the values of the sales, the gravity factor related to SAS Cargo’s particular situation, the duration, the recidivism uplift and the various mitigating circumstances; as such the fine should be annulled or alternatively significantly reduced.

---