Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/27

—

(Case C-382/22 P)

(2022/C 303/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (represented by: J. Flynn, Solicitor, M. Rees and E. Estellon, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

—grant the remaining forms of order sought in the judgment under appeal;

—annul each of the remaining 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) (the Decision) insofar as they concern the appellant; and

—set aside the remainder of the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of the Decision; or

—in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the remainder of the fine imposed on the appellant, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction on the basis of objective mistakes in the grounds and the reasoning of the judgment under appeal; and

—order the Commission to pay all the appellant’s costs, including those incurred by the appellant before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises six grounds of appeal.

In the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court incorrectly established Community jurisdiction over conduct relating to inbound flights, i.e. airfreight services from third countries to the EEA.

In the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court wrongly characterised and failed to correctly apply the so-called ‘State Compulsion Defence’ raised by appellant and to have due regard to the principles of International comity and non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign third state.

In the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to adjudicate all of the arguments raised by the appellant, having decided to partially annul the infringements on limitation grounds.

In the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to establish adequate reasoning for its conclusion that the appellant participated in the single and continuous infringement and infringed the principle of equal treatment.

In the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in its approach to evidence that does not directly relate to the infringements now attributed to the appellant and failed to use cogent reasoning in relation to all of the evidence in finding that the appellant participated in the single and continuous infringement.

In the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in considering that the appellant’s refusal to pay commission infringed Article 101 TFEU and/or formed a part of the single and continuous infringement.

—