CELEX: 62017TN0337
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-337/17: Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Air France-KLM v Commission

7.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/32
            
         Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Air France-KLM v Commission
   (Case T-337/17)
   (2017/C 256/38)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, 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 in full, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 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.39258 — Airfreight, insofar as it concerns Air France-KLM, as well as the grounds supporting its operative part, on the basis of the applicant’s first plea in law;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment in full of Decision C(2017) 1742 final on the basis of the first plea in law:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that the finding of a single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM is based on evidence submitted by Lufthansa in the context of its application for immunity under the 2002 Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s second plea in law;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions exclude from the scope of the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM airlines referred to in the grounds of the decision as being involved in the practices relating to that infringement, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with its third plea in law;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b) and Article 1(3)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions declare that the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM includes inbound freight traffic entering the EEA (inbound EEA traffic), and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s fourth plea in law;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               in the further alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment of Decision C(2017) 1742 on the basis of the second, third or fourth pleas in law:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the first paragraph 1 of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions declare that the refusal to commission freight forwarders amounts to a separate aspect of the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s fifth plea in law;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               in the even further alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment of Decision C(2017) 1742 on the basis of the fifth plea in law:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul Article 3(b) and (d) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, on the ground that the calculation of those fines includes tariffs and 50 % of the inbound EEA revenue of the Air France company and of KLM (in accordance with the applicant’s sixth plea in law), overestimates the seriousness of the infringement attributed to Air France-KLM (in accordance with the applicant’s seventh plea in law), proceeds on the basis of an incorrect duration of the infringement attributed to the Air France company (in accordance with the applicant’s eighth plea in law) and applies an insufficient fine reduction in respect of the regulatory regimes (in accordance with the applicant’s ninth plea in law), as well as the grounds supporting those provisions, and reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, those fines to an appropriate amount;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               in any event, order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant invokes nine pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the responsibility for the practices of Air France and KLM was incorrectly attributed to Air France-KLM. This plea is divided into two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, alleging that responsibility for Air France’s practices as of 15 September 2004 and for those of KLM as of 5 May 2004 was incorrectly attributed to Air France-KLM;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, alleging that responsibility for Air France’s practices between 7 December 1999 and 15 September 2004 was incorrectly attributed to Air France-KLM;
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the 2002 Leniency Notice and of the principles of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and non-discrimination between Air France-KLM and Lufthansa affecting the admissibility of the evidence submitted in the context of Lufthansa’s application for immunity;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons and infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and protection against arbitrary intervention on the part of the Commission as a result of the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which had been involved in the practices concerned. This plea comprises two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, based on the argument that the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which had been involved in those practices is vitiated by a failure to state reasons;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, based on the argument that the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which had been involved in those practices is vitiated by an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the principle of protection against arbitrary intervention on the part of the Commission;
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the inbound EEA traffic in the single and continuous infringement is contrary to the rules imposing limits on the Commission’s territorial powers. This plea is divided into two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, based on the fact that the practices relating to inbound EEA traffic were not implemented within the EEA;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part: the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of serious effects within the EEA linked to the practices relating to inbound EEA traffic;
                        
                     
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging contradictory reasoning and a manifest error of assessment vitiating the finding that the refusal to pay commission to freight forwarders amounts to a separate aspect of the single and continuous infringement. This plea comprises 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;
                        
                     
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging an error in the sales values taken into account to calculate the fine imposed on Air France-KLM; this plea is divided into two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, alleging that the inclusion of tariffs in the sales value 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 inbound EEA income in the sales values infringes the 2006 Guidelines on the calculation of fines and the ne bis in idem principle;
                        
                     
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging an erroneous assessment of the severity of the infringement; this plea comprises two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, based on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices is based on several manifest errors of assessment and 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 stems from the inclusion in the scope of the infringement of contacts relating to practices implemented outside the EEA, in breach of the rules governing the Commission’s territorial powers;
                        
                     
         
               8.
            
            
               Eighth plea in law, alleging an error in the calculation of the duration of the infringement imputed to Air France and taken into account for the calculation of the fine imposed on Air France-KLM;
            
         
               9.
            
            
               Ninth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and inadequacy of the 15 % reduction granted by the Commission in respect of the regulatory regimes.