This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0040
Case T-40/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Lan Airlines and Lan Cargo v Commission
Case T-40/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Lan Airlines and Lan Cargo v Commission
Case T-40/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Lan Airlines and Lan Cargo v Commission
OJ C 80, 12.3.2011, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
12.3.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 80/27 |
Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Lan Airlines and Lan Cargo v Commission
(Case T-40/11)
2011/C 80/52
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Lan Airlines SA and Lan Cargo SA (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, and O. Geiss, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the contested decision insofar as it relates to the applicants; |
— |
In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicants; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of their application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘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 COMP/39.258 — Airfreight), insofar as it relates to the applicants.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to establish, to the requisite legal standards, that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement and, as a result, committed an error in law and in fact when applying Article 101 TFEU, as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicants’ rights of defence, as:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of equal treatment, individual liability and proportionality when determining the basic amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, as:
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment and failed to state reasons when adjusting the basic fine amount for mitigating circumstances, as:
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons for its exclusion of eleven addressees of the Statement of Objections in the contested decision, for its finding that the applicants engaged in a single and continuous infringement, and for its calculation of the fine imposed as:
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicants’ right to a fair trial and, as a result, breached Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as:
|