This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0028
Case T-28/11: Action brought on 23 January 2011 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
Case T-28/11: Action brought on 23 January 2011 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
Case T-28/11: Action brought on 23 January 2011 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
IO C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 30–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
5.3.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 72/30 |
Action brought on 23 January 2011 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
(Case T-28/11)
2011/C 72/48
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
annul Commission Decision No C(2010) 7694 final on 9 November 2010 in whole or in part, and in subsidiary order, |
— |
reduce the fine imposed. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Application pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the ‘TFEU’) (ex Article 230 EC) for the review and annulment of Commission Decision No C(2010) 7694 final on 9 November 2010, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 EC), 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) addressed to KLM N.V.; and, in subsidiary order, for the reduction of the fine imposed pursuant to Article 261 TFEU (ex article 229 EC).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to state reasons within the meaning of article 296 TFEU and article 41 (2) (C) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this regard the applicant submits the following arguments:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the decision was taken in violation of the right to due process within the meaning of article 41, 47, 48, 49, and 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this regard the applicant submits the following arguments:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the fine has been set in breach of article 101 TFEU, article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the 2006 Fining Guidelines since:
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the determination of fines under the 2006 Fining Guidelines is manifestly erroneous and in violation of the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment. In this regard the applicant submits the following arguments:
|
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1