EU top court should reject Air France-KLM cartel fine appeal, court adviser says
By Foo Yun Chee
BRUSSELS, Sept 5 (Reuters) -Europe's top court should reject an appeal by Air France KLM AIRF.PA and its Dutch unit KLM, British Airways ICAG.L, Singapore Airlines SIAL.SI and some of their peers against cartel fines imposed by EU antitrust regulators in 2017, an adviser to the court said on Thursday.
The European Commission seven years ago reissued fines totalling 776 million euros to 11 airlines for taking part in a cartel to fix air cargo prices, after the Luxembourg-based General Court scrapped its first decision levied in 2010 due to a procedural error.
The carriers took their grievance back to the lower tribunal which threw out their challenges in 2022, prompting them to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The court's judges should dismiss their appeals, CJEU Advocate General Athanasios Rantos said in a non-binding opinion, as he sided with the EU competition enforcer.
He said SAS' SAS.ST appeal for a cut in its fine should be referred back to the General Court to be reviewed.
The CJEU, which usually follows the majority of such recommendations, will rule in the coming months.
Air France-KLM's fine was the highest at 182.9 million euros, followed by KLM at 127.1 million. Lufthansa LHAG.DE, which avoided a fine after it alerted the EU watchdog to the cartel, had also appealed the decision because it disagreed with the Commission's legal arguments.
The EU watchdog said the cartel fixed air freight services, fuel and security surcharges from December 1999 to February 2006.
The other airlines which appealed the EU fines are Air Canada AC.TO, Japan Airlines 9201.T, Cathay Pacific Airways 0293.HK, Latam Airlines Group and its subsidiary Lan Cargo, and Cargolux CLUX.UL.
The cases are C-367/22 P Air Canada v Commission, C-369/22 P Air France v Commission, C-370/22 P Air France-KLM v Commission, C-375/22 P LATAM Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission, C-378/22 P British Airways v Commission, C-379/22 P Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission, C-380/22 P Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission, C-381/22 P Japan Airlines v Commission, C-382/22 P Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission, C-385/22 P Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission, C-386/22 P Martinair Holland v Commission, C-401/22 P Cargolux Airlines v Commission and C-403/22 P SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission.
Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; Editing by Hugh Lawson
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
