169Furthermore, in so far as Air Canada submits that only an ‘active contribution’ by the undertaking to the infringement or proof that the undertaking played an ‘essential role’ in the infringement would allow it to be found liable on account of its contribution to the overall plan pursuing a common objective, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, it is sufficient for the Commission to show that the undertaking concerned participated in meetings at which anticompetitive agreements were concluded, without manifestly opposing them, to prove to the requisite standard that the undertaking participated in the cartel. Where participation in such meetings has been established, it is for that undertaking to put forward evidence to establish that its participation in those meetings was without any anticompetitive intention by demonstrating that it had indicated to its competitors that it was participating in those meetings in a spirit that was different from theirs (judgment of 1 February 2024, Scania and Others v Commission, C‑251/22 P, EU:C:2024:103, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.