- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-386/22 P: Appeal brought on 13 June2022 by Martinair Holland NV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-323/17, Martinair Holland v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0386
62022CN0386
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 303/30
—
(Case C-386/22 P)
(2022/C 303/37)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Martinair Holland NV (represented by: R. Wesseling and F. Brouwer, advocaten)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it holds that the Commission has jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes; and
—annul, the entire 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); or
—in the alternative, partly annul the Decision insofar as it finds that the appellant infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement with regard to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes; and
—in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by the appellant before the Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the appellant relies on the following plea in law.
The General Court erred in law and infringed its duty to state reasons by concluding that the inbound freight services fall within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement.
First part: The General Court infringed its duty to state reasons, erred in law and violated Article 101 TFEU in concluding that inbound freight services sorted relevant effects in the EEA.
Second part: The General Court infringed its duty to state reasons, erred in law and violated Article 101 TFEU in concluding that inbound freight services sorted probable effects in the EEA.
Third part: The General Court erred in law by relying on arguments and evidence not advanced by the Commission.
Fourth part: The General Court erred in law and violated Article 101 TFEU by concluding that the single and continuous infringement can extend the Commission’s jurisdiction over conduct outside the EEA.
—