# C_2017188EN.01000901.xml

| 14.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/9

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions meeting on 6 March 2017 concerning a draft decision relating to case AT.39258 — Airfreight

Rapporteur: Finland

(2017/C 188/09)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that it is legally possible to re-adopt a new decision in this case following the (partial) annulment of the 2010 Decision by the Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that it is legally possible to re-adopt a new decision in this case following the (partial) annulment of the 2010 Decision by the Court.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Articles 5(j) to 5(l) of the 2010 Decision are repealed and re-adopted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Articles 5(j) to 5(l) of the 2010 Decision are repealed and re-adopted.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the draft decision applies to British Airways plc in so far as the judgment of the General Court in Case T-48/11 of 16 December 2015 annulled the 2010 Decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the draft decision applies to British Airways plc in so far as the judgment of the General Court in Case T-48/11 of 16 December 2015 annulled the 2010 Decision.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the undertakings’ behaviour and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the undertakings’ behaviour and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice were capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice were capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 13. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 14. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines. |
| --- | --- |

14.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines.

| 15. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case.

| 16. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the fine for the two undertakings whose adjusted basic amount exceeds 10 % of their total turnover. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the fine for the two undertakings whose adjusted basic amount exceeds 10 % of their total turnover.

| 17. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the treatment of the leniency applications and the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the treatment of the leniency applications and the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 18. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 19. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

19.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---