Case T-344/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for airfreight — Decision finding an infringement of 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 — Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) — Exchange of information — Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission — Limitation period — Ne bis in idem principle — Principle of non-discrimination — Rights of the defence — State constraint — Single and continuous infringement — Amount of the fine — Value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Substantially limited participation — Proportionality — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: additional duty, air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, price agreement, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2022207EN.01003201.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/32






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission
(Case T-344/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of 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 - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Limitation period - Ne bis in idem principle - Principle of non-discrimination - Rights of the defence - State constraint - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Substantially limited participation - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2022/C 207/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA (Santiago, Chile), Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss and W. Sparks, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Koleva, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of 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 so far as it relates to the applicants and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1(1)(i) and (j),(3)(i) and (j), and (4)(i) and (j) of 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);










2.


Annuls Article 1(2)(i) and (j) of that decision in so far as it finds that Latam Airlines Group SA and Lan Cargo SA participated, first, in the elements of the single and continuous infringement relating to the security surcharge and the refusal to pay commission and, second, in the element of the single and continuous infringement relating to the fuel surcharge before 22 July 2005;










3.


Annuls Article 3(i) of that decision;










4.


Sets the fine imposed jointly and severally on Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo at EUR 2 244 000;










5.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










6.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.