Appeal brought on 8 June 2022 by Air France-KLM against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-337/17, Air France-KLM v European Commission

(Case C-370/22 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Air France-KLM (represented by: A. Wachsmann, M. Blayney, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Principally,

Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

Consequently, annul European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 – Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France-KLM SA, as well as the grounds on which its operative part is based, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on Air France-KLM SA; and

In the alternative, reduce to an appropriate amount, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fine of EUR 307 360 000 imposed jointly and severally on Air France-KLM and, on the one hand, on Air France SA and, on the other, on KLM, by Articles 3(b) and 3(d) of European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 – Airfreight);

In any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Air France-KLM SA before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based, principally, on a ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal, in the alternative, on a ground for setting aside that judgment and, in the further alternative, on two grounds for variation of that judgment.

Principally, by the first ground of appeal, Air France-KLM submits that the judgment under appeal incorrectly confirms the imputation of Air France’s practices and of part of the practices of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (‘KLM’). On that basis, Air France-KLM claims that the judgment should be set aside.

In the alternative, by the second ground of appeal, Air France-KLM submits that the General Court failed correctly to assess the Commission’s jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU to inbound services, that is to say, from a third country to the EEA. Air France-KLM maintains that the analysis of the qualified effects is vitiated by errors of law and that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons. On that basis, Air France-KLM claims that the judgment should be set aside.

In the further alternative, by the third ground of appeal, Air France-KLM submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of equal treatment, as regards the taking into account of regulatory regimes.

By its fourth and final ground of appeal, Air France-KLM contends that the General Court made errors of law by reversing the burden of proof when it found that Air France participated uninterruptedly in the infringement between 7 December 1999 and 14 February 2006.

____________