This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0343
Case T-343/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission
Case T-343/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission
Case T-343/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission
OJ C 239, 24.7.2017, p. 64–65
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
24.7.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 239/64 |
Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission
(Case T-343/17)
(2017/C 239/76)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: R. Kreisberger and N. Grubeck, Barristers, M. Rees, Solicitor and E. Estellon, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul each of the findings of infringement set out in Article 1(1) to 1(4) 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) insofar as they concern the applicant; |
— |
annul Article 3 of the contested decision insofar as it imposed a fine of EUR 57 120 000 on the applicant or alternatively reduce the amount of that fine, and |
— |
order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of making this application. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or in fact and/or failed to meet the applicable standard of proof by including the applicant in Article 1(1) and 1(4) of the operative part of the contested decision and finding that the applicant participated in the alleged single and continuous infringement.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting a second decision against the applicant, which imputes new infringing conduct to it, the Commission has violated Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 as well as the principles of legal certainty, justice and the good administration of justice. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to establish to the requisite standard of proof that the applicant is liable for participation in the alleged single and continuous infringement.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to give adequate reasons to support its finding that the applicant participated in the alleged single and continuous infringement. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on the applicant’s activities in third-country regulated jurisdictions as evidence of participation in the alleged single and continuous infringement and failed to give reasons in that regard.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission had no jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU to conduct relating to inbound flights, i.e. airfreight services from third countries to Europe. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in calculating the fine imposed on the applicant. |