---
title: "Air Canada v Commission: The Final Word on Extraterritoriality and Limitation Periods in EU Competition Law "
date: 2026-03-11
author: "Dinesh Gupta"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/international/air-canada-v-commission-cjeu-clarifies-eu-competition-law/
---

# Air Canada v Commission: The Final Word on Extraterritoriality and Limitation Periods in EU Competition Law 

Posted On - 11 March, 2026 •

By - [Dinesh Gupta](https://www.indialaw.in/people/dinesh-gupta/ "Posts by Dinesh Gupta") and [Riya Rajbhar](https://www.indialaw.in/author/riya-rajbhar/ "Posts by Riya Rajbhar")

[![Air Canada logo — IndiaLaw LLP client](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/Air-Canada.webp)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/Air-Canada.webp)

On 26 February 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as the Fifth Chamber, delivered its judgment in Air Canada v European Commission1, dismissing Air Canada 2019s appeal in its entirety. The ruling carries significant implications for the extraterritorial reach of EU competition law, the conditions under which liability may be imputed within a single and continuous infringement, and the procedural standing of limitation period pleas in enforcement proceedings. 

## **Background and Procedural History** 

The case arose from a global cartel involving several international air carriers operating in the airfreight services market. Following an immunity application by Deutsche Lufthansa AG in December 2005, the European Commission conducted inspections and ultimately issued a Statement of Objections to 27 carriers, including Air Canada, in December 2007. The Commission ensuing decision in November 2010 found a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, and Article 8 of the EC-Switzerland Air Transport Agreement, involving coordinated pricing through fuel surcharges, security surcharges, and a refusal to pay freight forwarder commissions on surcharges. 

That initial decision was annulled by the General Court in December 2015 on grounds of a defective statement of reasons. Following a renewed administrative process, the Commission re-adopted its decision on 17 March 2017, reimposing a fine of EUR 21,037,500 on Air Canada for conduct spanning from 21 September 2000 to 14 February 2006. Air Canada challenged the re-adopted decision before the General Court, which, in March 2022, partially upheld the action by excluding the commission-refusal element from Air Canada liability and reducing the fine to EUR 17,952,000. Air Canada appealed to the CJEU on three principal grounds. 

## **First Ground: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Qualified Effects Test** 

Air Canada contended that the General Court erred in relying exclusively on the qualified effects to establish the Commission jurisdiction over inbound freight routes that is, routes from third countries into the EEA. It argued that the Commission was further obliged to conduct a substantive assessment of actual anticompetitive effects within the internal market, particularly given that the cartel had been classified as a restriction of competition by object. 

The CJEU affirmed, consistent with its earlier judgment in Intel v Commission2, that the implementation test and the qualified effects test are alternative and not cumulative bases for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Court further held that the General Court had not impermissibly substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission. Rather, it had read the decision as a whole and drawn legitimate inferences from recitals describing the nature of the conduct, the structure of the airfreight market, and the foreseeable downstream effects on EEA consumers and importers. The Court also rejected Air Canada’s claim that the burden of proof had been reversed, confirming that once the Commission adduces prima facie evidence of foreseeable effects, it falls upon the undertaking to adduce contrary evidence. 

## **Third Ground: Liability Within a Single and Continuous Infringement** 

Perhaps the most procedurally significant aspect of the judgment concerns Air Canada’s third ground of appeal, by which it submitted that the General Court ought to have raised of its own motion the plea based on the expiry of the limitation period under Article 25 of Regulation No. 1/2003. Other carriers, namely Japan Airlines, Cathay Pacific, and Latam Airlines, had successfully relied upon this plea before the General Court, resulting in partial annulments of the decision. Air Canada, having omitted to raise it at first instance, argued that the limitation period constituted a matter of public policy requiring the court to consider it ex officio. 

The CJEU firmly rejected this argument. Through textual, contextual, and teleological analysis of Regulation No. 1/2003 and its legislative antecedents in Regulation No. 2988/74, the Court held that the limitation period under Article 25 serves primarily to protect the private interests of undertakings subject to enforcement proceedings, not to advance a broader public interest. It is therefore fundamentally distinct from procedural time limits such as the deadline for bringing annulment proceedings under Article 263 TFEU which protect the finality and legal certainty of administrative decisions and must be raised of the court’s own motion. The Court equally rejected Air Canada’s equal treatment argument. The disparity in outcome between Air Canada and the other carriers resulted solely from Air Canada’s own procedural choice not to raise the plea. 

## **Second Ground: The Limitation Period and Matters of Public Policy** 

Air Canada further argued that it could not lawfully be held liable for the infringement in respect of intra-EEA routes and EU-Switzerland routes, given that it never operated, and could not legally have operated, such routes. It challenged what it characterised as the General Court’s substitution of its own reasoning for that of the Commission, alleging also a violation of its rights of defence and an insufficiency of reasons. 

The CJEU dismissed this ground in its entirety. Drawing on settled case-law including Commission v Verhuizingen Coppens and Scania and Others v Commission, the Court reaffirmed that liability for a single and continuous infringement does not require direct participation in every constituent element of the cartel. It suffices that an undertaking contributed to the overarching anticompetitive plan and was aware  or could reasonably have foreseen the conduct of co-participants. The Court confirmed that the General Court had correctly identified the Commission actual reasoning in the decision, namely Air Canada contribution to the common anticompetitive objective and its awareness of the wider cartel arrangements. 

## Riya Rajbhar**Practical Implications** 

This judgment carries several important lessons for undertakings engaged in international commerce. It confirms that the Commission’s jurisdiction extends robustly to conduct adopted outside the EEA where foreseeable effects on EEA consumers can be established, without requiring proof of actual effects in cases involving restrictions by object. It reaffirms that participation in a global cartel may expose an undertaking to liability for routes it never served, provided the conditions for a single and continuous infringement are satisfied. Most critically, it serves as a salutary reminder that limitation period defences under Regulation No. 1/2003 are not self-executing. They must be raised expressly and timeously by the party concerned, failing which they are irrevocably lost. 

Undertakings facing Commission enforcement proceedings, particularly those based outside the European Union, should ensure that all available procedural defences, including those grounded in the expiry of limitation periods, are carefully considered and advanced at the earliest available opportunity.  

For more details, write to us at: [contact@indialaw.in](mailto:contact@indialaw.in) 

Disclaimer - This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal counsel in relation to their individual circumstances.

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/international/air-canada-v-commission-cjeu-clarifies-eu-competition-law//pdf/)

[Competition / Anti-Trust](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/competition-anti-trust/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---