Case T-67/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Martinair Holland v Commission
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), air transport, equal treatment, fine, subsidiary








C_2011095EN.01000902.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/9





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Martinair Holland v Commission
(Case T-67/11)
2011/C 95/15
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the decision in whole or in part, or










—


reduce the fines imposed by Article 5 of the decision, and










—


condemn the Commission to the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Application under Articles 263 and 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003 for the review and annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 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 COMP/39.258 — Airfreight) addressed to Martinair Holland N.V. and, in subsidiary order, for the reduction of the fine imposed.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that:






—


the Commission violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter (the right to good administration) insofar as it is not possible to ascertain from the decision the nature and scope of the infringement(s); on the one hand, the operative part of the decision clearly identifies four (presumably single and continuous) infringements relating to distinct sets of addressees, different time periods and geographic routes. On the other hand, the statement of reasons is not based on nor refers to any of these four specific infringements;










—


to the extent the Court is unable to review in full the grounds underlying the decision due to the deficiency of (sufficiently clear) reasoning, the Commission violated essential procedural rights of the applicant; in particular, the applicant submits that the decision breaches the right to good administration; the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence and rights of defense pursuant to Articles 41, 47, and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in the calculation of the fine in violation of Regulation 1/2003 (1), the fining guidelines and violated the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons contrary to Articles 41 and 49 of the Charter on Human Right of the European Union, Article 296 TFEU and other general principles of EU law. In this regard, the applicant argues that:






—


first, the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in violation of the fining guidelines and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, by including turnover related to the rates and inbound flights in the calculation of the value of sales;










—


second, the Commission committed manifest errors in the assessment of the gravity of the infringement in violation of Regulation 1/2003, the fining guidelines and the principle of proportionality;










—


third, the Commission violated Regulation 1/2003, the fining guidelines and the principle of proportionality in taking into account the regulatory regimes as mitigating circumstance to only reduce the fine by 15 %;










—


fourth, the Commission violated its duty to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine contrary to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter.










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1