Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/21

—

(Case C-369/22 P)

(2022/C 303/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Air France SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann, M. Blayney, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Principally,

—Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

—Consequently, annul European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France SA, as well as the grounds on which its operative part is based, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on Air France SA; and

—In the alternative, reduce to an appropriate amount, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fine of EUR 182 920 000 imposed jointly and severally on Air France-KLM and Air France SA by Article 3(b) of European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

—In any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Air France SA before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based, principally, on a ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal and, in the alternative, on two grounds for variation of that judgment.

Principally, by the first ground of appeal, Air France SA submits that the General Court failed correctly to assess the Commission’s jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU to inbound services, that is to say, from a third country to the EEA. Air France SA maintains that the analysis of the qualified effects is vitiated by errors of law and that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons.

In the alternative, by the second ground of appeal, Air France SA submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of equal treatment, as regards the taking into account of regulatory regimes.

By its third and final ground of appeal, Air France SA contends that the General Court made errors of law by reversing the burden of proof when it found that Air France SA participated uninterruptedly in the infringement between 7 December 1999 and 14 February 2006.

—