Case T-338/17: Action brought on 2017 — Air France v Commission
Date: 2017-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, additional duty, air transport, carriage of goods, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, international cartel, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2017277EN.01004602.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/46





Action brought on 2017 — Air France v Commission
(Case T-338/17)
(2017/C 277/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


primarily, annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the entirety of European Commission Decision No C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017, Case AT.39258 — Airfreight, as far as it is concerned, and the reasons given for its operative part, on the basis of its first, second and third pleas in law;










—


in the alternative, if the General Court does not annul Decision No C(2017) 1742 final in its entirety on the basis of its first, second and third pleas in law:






—


first,






—


annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that the single and continuous infringement established against it is based on inadmissible evidence submitted by Lufthansa in connection with its application for immunity from fines, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its first plea in law,










—


annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it excludes from the scope of the single and continuous infringement established against it the airlines referred to in the reasons for the decision as being involved in the infringement, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its second plea in law,










—


annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(2)(c) and 1(3)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that finds that the single and continuous infringement established against it includes the airfreight services within the EEA (EEA inbound traffic), and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its third plea in law,














—


secondly, annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it finds that the refusal to commission the freight forwarders constitutes a separate element of the single and continuous infringement established against it, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its fourth plea in law,










—


and, thirdly, annul Article 3(b) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000 on the ground that the calculation of that fine includes its freight tariffs and 50 % of its revenue in respect of freight services into the EEA (EEA inbound revenue) (in accordance with its fifth plea in law), overestimates the seriousness of the infringement established against it (in accordance with its sixth plea in law), establishes an erroneous duration of infringement against it (in accordance with its seventh plea in law) and applies an insufficient fine reduction under the regulatory regimes (in accordance with its eighth plea in law), and the reasons given for it, and reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, that fine to an appropriate amount;














—


in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the 2002 Leniency Notice and of its principles of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and non-discrimination between Air France and Lufthansa affecting the admissibility of documents submitted in connection with Lufthansa’s application for immunity. This plea in law is divided into four parts:






—


First part, based on the admissibility of the first plea in law;










—


Second part, based on the withdrawal of immunity granted to Lufthansa;










—


Third part, alleging the inadmissibility of the evidence adduced in its application for immunity;










—


Fourth part, alleging that the inadmissibility of the evidence adduced by Lufthansa in its application for immunity should necessarily lead to the annulment of the decision.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and of protection against arbitrary action by the Commission resulting from the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which took part in the practices. That plea in law consists of two parts:






—


First part, based on the argument that the exclusion of airlines that took part in the practices from the operative part of the decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons;










—


Second part, based on the argument that the exclusion of airlines that took part in the practices from the operative part of the decision is vitiated by an infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and of protection against arbitrary action by the Commission.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules delimiting the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission, which, it claims, was committed as a result of the inclusion of the EEA inbound traffic in the single and continuous infringement. This plea in law is divided into two parts:






—


First part, based on the fact that the practices relating to the EEA inbound traffic were not implemented within the EEA;










—


Second part: the Commission has not, it claims, established the existence of qualified effects within the EEA connected with the practices relating to the EEA inbound traffic.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging contradictory reasoning and manifest error of assessment which vitiates the finding that the refusal to commission the freight forwarders constitutes a separate element of the single and continuous infringement. That plea in law consists of two parts:






—


First part, according to which that finding is vitiated by contradictory reasoning;










—


Second part, according to which that finding is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.














5.


Fifth plea in law, relating to the incorrect nature of the value of sales considered for the calculation of Air France’s fine and which is divided into two parts:






—


First part, alleging that the inclusion of the tariffs in the value of sales is based on contradictory reasoning, several errors of law and a manifest error of assessment;










—


Second part, alleging that the inclusion of 50 % of the EEA inbound revenue in the value of sales infringes the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the principle of ne bis in idem.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging erroneous assessment of the seriousness of the infringement, and consisting of two parts:






—


First part, relying on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices was based on several manifest errors of assessment and an infringement of the principles of proportionality of penalties and equal treatment;










—


Second part, based on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices resulted from the inclusion in the scope of the infringement contacts relating to practices implemented outside of the EEA, in breach of the rules of territorial jurisdiction of the Commission.














7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging incorrect calculation of the duration of the infringement.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and the insufficiency of the 15 % reduction granted by the Commission under the regulatory regimes.