European Union: Airfreight: Major Defeat For The European Commission

The General Court annulled the airfreight decision adopted in November 2010 by which the European Commission fined a number of air freight carriers EUR 799 million for a price fixing cartel. According to the Court, the grounds of the decision and the operative part of the decision were contradictory.

Background to the Dispute

In November 2010, the Commission found that 21 air freight carriers infringed EU antitrust rules by coordinating their behavior in regard to surcharges for fuel and security, both of which determine pricing of freight services, on routes between the EU/EEA and airports in third countries for various periods. The Commission imposed fines totalling EUR 799 million.

With the exception of Qantas Airways, the carriers challenged the Commission decision before the General1 Court. The judgments, which were handed down on 16 December 2015, are largely identical as the General Court annulled the Commission decision for the same reason in respect of each applicant.

Contradiction Between the Grounds of the Contested Decision and its Operative Part

The carriers each contended that there had been a failure to state reasons, as there was a contradiction2 between the grounds of the contested decision and its operative part. They submitted that, as a result, the decision had to be annulled. More specifically, the carriers argued that in the grounds of the decision the Commission described one single and continuous infringement, whereas the operative part of the contested decision found four separate infringements based on different routes and different periods, which involved different carriers.

Before examining whether there was indeed a contradiction between the grounds and the operative part of the decision, the General Court first set out a number of general principles. It noted in particular that:

  • An inadequate statement of reasons constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements;
  • A statement of reasons must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Commission in such a way as to make the addressee of the decision aware of the reasons for the sanction, and thus enable him to defend its rights on appeal; and
  • Clear wording of the operative part of a decision finding an infringement must also allow national judges to understand the scope of the infringement and to identify the infringing companies in order to be able to draw the necessary inferences in regard to claims for damages.

Articles 1 to 4 of the operative part of the contested decision can be summarized as follows:

The Commission argued that this division reflected the complexity of the case, as the single and continuous infringement described in its decision infringed three different legal provisions and concerned different territorial and temporal scopes.

Infringement of Essential Procedural Requirements

The General Court concluded that there was a contradiction between the grounds of the contested decision and its operative part which constituted an infringement of essential procedural requirements. According to the grounds of the contested decision, all of the 21 carriers mentioned in the Commission decision participated in the anticompetitive conduct comprising the single and continuous worldwide infringement,

irrespective of the route operated. Yet, only 11 of the 21 carriers are mentioned in each of the four Articles of the operative part; the others are mentioned in some, but not all of the first four Articles.

The General Court held that this fact was difficult to reconcile with the Commission's finding set out in the grounds of the contested decision of a single and continuous infringement.

The General Court stressed that to establish liability vis-à-vis a company for participation in a single and continuous infringement, the Commission must show that the company intended to contribute by its own conduct to the common objectives pursued by all the participants and that it was aware of the unlawful conduct planned or put into effect by other companies in pursuit of the same objectives or that it could reasonably have foreseen it and that it was prepared to take the risk.

Applying this principle to the contested decision, the General Court stated that if the anticompetitive conduct was regarded as comprising a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement, concerning all routes by the cartel, and in which all of the carriers at issue participated, the carriers mentioned in Article 2 should also be included in Articles 1 and 4 of the operative part.

Moreover, all of the carriers which, according to Article 2, participated in the conduct referred to in that article for a period that extended beyond 19 May 2005 should also be included in Article 3 of the operative part.

The General Court therefore concluded that the first four Articles of the operative part cannot be interpreted as supporting the Commission's findings of a single and continuous infringement in relation to all the routes covered by the cartel and in which all the carriers covered by the Commission decision participated. Rather, as several carriers are mentioned in some but not all four Articles, the first four Articles of the operative part must be interpreted as meaning either:

  • That the operative part finds four separate single and continuous infringements, each concerning a different category of routes, which might also explain the use of the word "infringements" in the plural, in Articles 5 and 6; or
  • That the operative part finds one single and continuous infringement, liability of which is attributed only to the carriers which—in regard to the routes mentioned in each of the four Articles of the operative part— participated directly in the unlawful conduct referred to in each of those Articles or were aware of collusion regarding those routes and accepted the risk.

Finally, the General Court also noted that the grounds of the contested decision themselves were not entirely internally consistent.

Infringement of the Applicants' Right of Defense

Under European law, the mere existence of contradiction is not sufficient to establish that the decision is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons resulting in the infringement of the applicant's right of defense, provided that:

  • The decision, taken as a whole, is such that the applicant is able to identify and plead that lack of consistency;
  • The wording of the operative part of the decision is sufficiently clear and precise to allow the applicant to ascertain the exact scope of the decision; and
  • The evidence relied upon to demonstrate the applicant's participation in the infringements imputed to it in the operative part is clearly identified and examined in the grounds.

In that regard, the General Court noted that neither of the two possible interpretations of the operative part of the contested decision described above was consistent with the grounds of the decision. As a result, since the General Court could not favor one of those interpretations without submitting its own assessment for that of the Commission, it examined, in the context of at least one of those two possible interpretations, whether the internal inconsistencies in the contested decision were liable to infringe the applicant's rights of defense and prevent the Court from exercising its power of review.

In regard to the first interpretation (namely that the operative part of the contested decision finds four separate single and continuous infringements), the General Court observed that:

  • The applicant was able to identify a contradiction but was not in a position to understand to what extent the evidence set out in the grounds of the contested decision, relating to the existence of a single and continuous infringement, was liable to establish the existence of four separate infringements found in the operative part, as the Commission did not treat the evidence adduced in regard to each of the carriers differently depending on the routes or categories of routes to which that evidence related;
  • The applicant was also unable to understand the line of reasoning that led the Commission to find the applicant liable for an infringement, including in respect of routes which it did not operate within the parameters defined by each article of the contested decision, and, accordingly, to understand whether it had been treated unfairly by comparison with the carriers at issue which were held liable for only two infringements, or even just one, on the ground that they did not operate certain routes.

Moreover, it was not clear from a reading of the contested decision why certain carriers were not included in some Articles of the contested decision.

The General Court also held that it was unable to review the legality of the contested decision, since it was not in a position to assess whether the evidence adduced by the Commission in order to establish the existence of a single and continuous infringement was sufficient to establish the existence of the four infringements found in the operative part of that decision.

The General Court concluded that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and therefore annulled the decision insofar as it concerned each of the applicants. In each case the Commission was ordered to pay its own costs. The Commission was also ordered to pay the costs of all the applicants.

Major Takeaways

Throughout the world, antitrust enforcement authorities imposed fines on a number of airlines for the alleged global airfreight cartel.

The General Court's ruling is a victory for the air freight carriers that appealed the contested decision. Indeed, the General Court rarely annuls Commission antitrust decisions in their entirety.

While the broader effects of the ruling are still being examined, what is clear at the present stage is that:

  • The European Commission may request the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court's ruling;
  • Alternatively, or in addition, the Commission could re-adopt its decision and re-impose fines on the various carriers; and
  • Qantas did not appeal the Commission decision, which therefore remains valid as far as it is concerned.

This will raise even more issues were the Commission to re-adopt a decision. The ruling may also have an impact on a number of damages actions that have been brought based, at least in part, on the Commission decision before various national courts of the EU Member States.


1 Judgments in Cases T-9/11 Air Canada, T-28/11 Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, T-36/11 Japan Airlines, T-38/11 Cathay Pacific Airways, T-39/11 Cargolux Airlines International, T-40/11 Latam Airlines Group and Others, T-43/11 Singapore Airlines and Others, T-46/11 Deutsche Lufthansa and Others, T-48/11 British Airways, T-56/11 SAS Cargo Group and Others, T-62/11 Air France-KLM, T-63/11 Société Air France and T-67/11 Martinair Holland v Commission. Shearman & Sterling represented Cargolux Airlines International in its appeal against the Commission decision. Members of the Global Antitrust Group previously represented United Airlines, which were dropped from the investigation prior to the Commission adopting a decision.

2 The General Court raised this point in the context of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991, by putting written questions to the parties in the appeals.

3 Air France-KLM, Air France, KLM, British Airways, Cargolux, Lufthansa Cargo, Lufthansa, Swiss, Martinair, SAS, SAS Cargo, Scandinavian Airlines.

4 Air Canada, Air France-KLM, Air France, KLM, British Airways, Cargolux, Cathay, Japan Airlines Corp., Japan Airlines International, LAN, LAN Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, Lufthansa, Swiss, Martinair, Qantas, SAS, SAS Cargo, Singapore Airlines Cargo, Singapore Airlines.

5 Air Canada, Air France-KLM, Air France, KLM, British Airways, Cargolux, Cathay, Japan Airlines Corp., Japan Airlines International, Lufthansa Cargo, Lufthansa, Swiss, Martinair, Qantas, SAS, SAS Cargo, Singapore Airlines Cargo, Singapore Airlines.

6 Air France-KLM, Air France, KLM, British Airways, Cargolux, Lufthansa Cargo, Lufthansa, Swiss, Martinair, SAS, SAS Cargo, Scandinavian Airlines System.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.