—

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;

—

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;

—

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;

—

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;

—

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;

—

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;

—

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;

—

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;

—

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;