(AGENPARL) – Thu 26 February 2026 PRESS RELEASE No 21/26
Luxembourg, 26 February 2026
Judgments of the Court in Cases C-367/22 P | Air Canada, C-369/22 P | Air France, C-370/22 P | Air
France-KLM, C-375/22 P | LATAM Airlines Group and Lan Cargo, C-378/22 P | British Airways, C-379/22 P
| Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo, C-380/22 P | Deutsche Lufthansa and Others,
C-381/22 P | Japan Airlines, C-382/22 P | Cathay Pacific Airways, C-385/22 P | Koninklijke Luchtvaart
Maatschappij, C-386/22 P | Martinair Holland, C-401/22 P | Cargolux Airlines and C-403/22 P | SAS Cargo
Group and Others v Commission
Airfreight cartel: the Court of Justice dismisses the appeals brought by 12
airlines against the judgments of the General Court
By contrast, it reduces the amount of the fine imposed on SAS Cargo Group
On 9 November 2010, the European Commission adopted an initial decision 1 against multiple airlines operating on
the airfreight market which had participated in a pricing cartel between December 1999 and February 2006. They
were fined a total of approximately €790 million. The Commission found that the airlines had infringed the
provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Agreement on the European
Economic Area (EEA) and the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air
Transport (EC-Switzerland), which prohibit agreements, decisions and concerted practices that restrict competition.
The cartel related to a number of constituent elements of the price of services provided in that market, in particular
the introduction of ‘fuel’ and ‘security’ surcharges, as well as the refusal to pay commission to freight forwarders on
those surcharges. However, that decision was annulled, in whole or in part, by the General Court of the European
Union 2 on the grounds of internal contradictions that could undermine the rights of defence of the airlines.
On 17 March 2017, the Commission adopted a fresh decision, 3 in which it amended the defective statement of
reasons identified by the General Court and imposed fines on the airlines for a total amount of €776 million.
The airlines requested that the General Court also annul that fresh decision or reduce the amount of the fines
imposed. By judgments of 30 March 2022, 4 the General Court dismissed the actions brought by Martinair Holland,
KLM, Cargolux, Air France-KLM, Air France, Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines. By contrast, it annulled the decision at
issue in part and reduced the amount of the fine imposed on the other airlines (see the table in Press Release
No 53/22).
Appeals were lodged against those judgments of the General Court before the Court of Justice.
In a series of thirteen judgments delivered today, the Court of Justice rejects almost all of the arguments put
forward by the airlines. Only the appeal brought by SAS Cargo Group is upheld in part, on the grounds of
errors made by the General Court in calculating the amount of the fine imposed on that airline.
First, the Court of Justice rejects the arguments of the airlines challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction to
penalise the cartel in respect of airfreight services from third countries to the European Union or the EEA
(inbound freight).
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
It recalls that the Commission may find and penalise conduct adopted outside the territory of the European Union
or the EEA, provided that the conduct was implemented in that territory (‘the implementation test’) or that it was
foreseeable that it would have immediate and substantial effects there (‘the qualified effects test’).
In that regard, the Court of Justice considers that the General Court did not err in confirming the Commission’s
jurisdiction exclusively on the basis of the ‘qualified effects’ test, since the two tests are alternative.
Furthermore, the Court of Justice recalls that, under the qualified effects test, the Commission is required to
establish that the effects of the practices concerned must be ‘foreseeable, immediate and substantial’. In that
regard, it rejects the various arguments relating to errors of law allegedly made by the General Court in its review of
the characterisation of those effects.
Second, the Court of Justice rejects the arguments of the airlines challenging the fact that the various instances of
conduct at issue had been characterised as a ‘single and continuous infringement’. It recalls that, where an
infringement extends over several years, the fact that direct evidence of the implementation of an agreement by an
undertaking has not been adduced for certain specific periods does not preclude its participation in that agreement
from nevertheless being established in respect of those periods. However, such a finding must be based on
objective and consistent indicia. Moreover, the Court of Justice notes that an airline may be held liable even in
respect of routes on which it does not operate. It specifies that that is the case where the airline has contributed
through its own conduct to the common objectives pursued by all the participants in the cartel and where it was
aware of the offending conduct planned or put into effect by the other participants in the cartel at issue in pursuit of
the same objectives.
Third, the Court of Justice responds to the line of argument of the airlines that raised before it for the first time,
when they had not done so before the General Court, the plea based on the limitation period for the
Commission’s power to impose penalties in respect of certain conduct. The Court of Justice states that the plea
based on the expiry of the limitation period for that power 5 cannot be raised by the General Court of its own
motion, but must be raised by the party concerned, since it is not a plea involving a matter of public policy.
With regard to SAS Cargo Group, the Court of Justice considers that, in order to ensure purported equal treatment
as between the airlines, the General Court had included in the calculation basis turnover generated on internal
routes within the same State. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court did not have evidence establishing
that the other airlines concerned had had such turnover included in the calculation of the amount of their fines.
Without evidence of a difference in treatment, the General Court could not conclude that there had been a breach
of the principle of equal treatment or, on that basis, alter the amount of the fine imposed on SAS Cargo Group. The
Court of Justice therefore sets aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it relates to that point and sets the
amount of the fine at a lower level (see the table below).
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Summary table of fines
(for the other airlines, see Press Release No 53/22)
Airlines
Amount of the fine set by Amount of the fine set by
the Commission (€ millions)
the General Court (€
millions)
Amount of the fine set
by the Court of Justice
(€ millions)
7.03 (↑)
4.74 (↓)
SAS Cargo Group
(Scandinavian Airlines
System DenmarkNorway-Sweden only)
(Scandinavian Airlines System
Denmark-Norway-Sweden
only)
(Scandinavian Airlines
System DenmarkNorway-Sweden only)
5.94 (↑)
4.07 (↓)
Scandinavian Airlines System
Denmark-Norway-Sweden
(SAS Cargo Group and
(SAS Cargo Group and
(SAS Cargo Group and
Scandinavian Airlines
Scandinavian Airlines System Scandinavian Airlines
System Denmark-NorwayDenmark-Norway-Sweden,
System DenmarkSweden, jointly and severally)
jointly and severally)
Norway-Sweden, jointly
and severally)
6.31 (↑)
4.37 (↓)
(SAS, SAS Cargo Group and
(SAS, SAS Cargo Group and (SAS, SAS Cargo Group
Scandinavian Airlines System Scandinavian Airlines System
and Scandinavian
Denmark-Norway-Sweden,
Denmark-Norway-Sweden,
Airlines System
jointly and severally)
jointly and severally)
Denmark-NorwaySweden, jointly and
severally)
32,98
(SAS Cargo Group and SAS,
jointly and severally)
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
29.05 (↓)
27.7 (↓)
(SAS Cargo Group and SAS,
(SAS Cargo Group and
jointly and severally)
SAS, jointly and severally)
22.31
21.69 (↓)
21.97 (↓)
(SAS Cargo Group only)
(SAS Cargo Group only)
(SAS Cargo Group only)
curia.europa.eu
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgments (C-367/22 P, C-369/22 P, C-370/22 P, C-375/22 P,
C-378/22 P, C-379/22 P, C-380/22 P, C-381/22 P, C-382/22 P, C-385/22 P, C-386/22 P, C-401/22 P and C-403/22 P) is
published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 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 COMP/39258 – Airfreight) (see also
Commission Press Releases IP/10/1487).
Judgments of the General Court of 16 December 2015, Air Canada v Commission, T-9/11, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission, T-28/11,
Japan Airlines v Commission, T-36/11, Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission, T-38/11, Cargolux Airlines v Commission, T-39/11, Latam Airlines Group and Lan
Cargo v Commission, T-40/11, Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission, T-43/11, Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission,
T-46/11, British Airways v Commission, T-48/11, SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission, T-56/11, Air France-KLM v Commission, T-62/11, Air France v
Commission, T-63/11, Martinair Holland v Commission, T-67/11 (see also Press Release No 147/15).
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) (see also
Commission Press Releases IP/17/661).
Judgments of the General Court of 30 March 2022: Martinair Holland v Commission, T-323/17; SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission, T-324/17;
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission, T-325/17; Air Canada v Commission, T-326/17; Cargolux Airlines v Commission, T-334/17; Air France-KLM
v Commission, T-337/17; Air France v Commission, T-338/17; Japan Airlines v Commission, T-340/17; British Airways v Commission, T-341/17; Deutsche
Lufthansa and Others v Commission, T-342/17; Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission, T-343/17; Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission,
T-344/17; Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission, T-350/17 (see also Press Release No 53/22).
That limitation period is provided for in Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on
competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102 TFEU].
Communications Directorate