C 303/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
8.8.2022
In the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by upholding the Commission’s jurisdiction to find and sanction an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in respect of airfreight services from third countries to countries within the EEA (i.e. inbound routes).
Specifically, the appellant submits that the Commission erred in law by applying the incorrect legal test to assert jurisdiction on the basis of public international and not EU law, and in any case, misapplied the qualified effects standard under public international law.
In the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in upholding the Commission’s finding that the conduct in which the appellant participated amounted to an infringement by object.
In particular, the General Court erred in law by upholding the Commission’s finding that the conduct related to the non-payment of commissions on surcharges amounted to a by-object-infringement.
In the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by misstating and misapplying the legal test for establishing a single and continuous infringement and wrongly upholding the Decision sanctioning the appellant for such single and continuous infringement.
In particular, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission correctly established the complementary and continuous nature of the conducts comprising the single and continuous infringement.
In the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in the alternative, the General Court erred in law by finding the appellant liable for all aspects of the single and continuous infringement when it in fact had a limited participation, including by breaching the principle of equal treatment as regards its assessment of the appellant’s participation in the non-payment of commissions on surcharges, and wrongly establishing the appellant’s continued participation in the security surcharge during periods for which no evidence of such participation was adduced.
Appeal brought on 17 June 2022 by SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, SAS AB against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-324/17, SAS Cargo Group e.a. v Commission (Case C-403/22 P) (2022/C 303/39) Language of the case: English Parties Appellants: SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, SAS AB (represented by: B. Creve and M. Kofmann, advokater, and J. Killick and G. Forwood, avocats) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: — set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it dismissed the appellants’ action for annulment; — annul in whole or in part the 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) insofar as it relates to the appellants; — cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed; — in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and — order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.