C 331/24 EN 24.11.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments economic analysis, and does not provide any evidence or
quantification of the alleged effects of bundling, cross-subsidisation or predation on Honeywell’s rivals.
— The decision also infringes the applicant’s rights ofThe applicant in the present case is a diversified technologydefence in that it relies on new theories of cross-and manufacturing company incorporated under the laws ofsubsidisation and predation, which either were not men-the State of Delaware (USA). It seeks annulment of thetioned or were not developed in the statement ofCommission’s decision of 3 July 2001 (C(2001)1746 final,objections in such a way as to allow the applicant toadopted pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)defend itself.No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
concentrations between undertakings, as last amended byRegulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (‘the Merger The applicant underlines the fact that the present case concerns
Regulation’). the same markets and one of the same parties as those involved
in a merger which raised identical issues in the same industry
and was approved by the Commission less than 20 monthsbefore the Commission adopted the contested decision.
It is pointed out in this regard that on 5 February 2001,
General Electric Company, a diversified industrial company
incorporated in the State of New York (USA), notified to the
Commission a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4of the Merger Regulation by which GE had agreed to acquire
the entire share capital of Honeywell.Action brought on 12 September 2001 by the General
Electric Company against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities
In the contested decision, the Commission declared the notified (Case T-210/01)
concentration to be incompatible with the common market
and with the EEA Agreement. According to that decision, the(2001/C 331/40)proposed merger would lead to the creation or strengthening
of a dominant position on several markets, as a result of(Language of the case: English)which effective competition in the common market would be
significantly impeded.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 September 2001 by the GeneralIn support of its claims, the applicant submits that:Electric Company, a company incorporated under the laws of
the State of New York, represented by Nicholas Green QC,Cherie Booth QC, Jessica Simor, Kelyn Bacon, Simon Baxter— The decision does not reflect the facts and relies for itsand Marleen Van Kerckhove of Clifford Chance, Brussels, andconclusions on manifest and serious factual errors. InLouis Vogel and Joseph Vogel of Vogel & Vogel, Paris.particular, there is no factual basis for the assertions in
that decision that bundling is a common practice in
the aerospace industry, that Honeywell has engaged in The applicant claims that the Court should:
extensive bundling in the past or that the proposed
merger with GE would have enabled the merged entity to — annul Commission Decision C(2001)1746 dated 3 July
foreclose or marginalise rivals by engaging in bundling. 2001 in Case COMP/M.2220 — General Electric/Hone-
ywell,
— order the Commission to pay the costs. — The decision is based on manifest errors in its assessment
of the facts as regards, inter alia , its conclusions that the
merger in question would provide the incentive and the
means to engage in bundling in respect of BFE (BayerPleas in law and main argumentsFurnished Equipment) products as well as SFE Supplier
Furnished Equipment) and SFE-option products, that
customers in the aerospace industry will accept bundling, The applicant in this case is a diversified industrial corporation
and that bundling will marginalise Honeywell’s rivals and incorporated in the State of New York (USA). On 5 February
force them out of the market. 2001, the applicant notified to the Commission, pursuant to
Article 4 of the Merger Regulation, a proposed concentrationby which the applicant has agreed to acquire the entire
share capital of Honeywell, an advanced technology and — The decision is insufficiently reasoned in that it provides
no evidence in support of its conclusions concerning the manufacturing company incorporated in the State of Delaware
(USA). existence and effects of bundling, is not based on any
24.11.2001 EN C 331/25 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision declar- European Communities on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni, resident in St-Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom), ing the notified concentration to be incompatible with the
common market and the EEA Agreement. represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.
In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the decision
did not correctly apply the test laid down in Article 2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 for declaring a merger
incompatible with the common market. According to the
Primarily: applicant the decision failed to address, the question of the
creation or strengthening of a dominant position and the
concept of a significant barrier to competition.
— annul the Commission’s decision of 16 November 2000,
The decision did not, according to the applicant, provide
— award a total of EUR 125 000 as compensation for sufficient evidence of the alleged practices of mixed bundling
damage suffered, of aircraft engines with avionics and non-avionics products.
Nor was the decision supported by an economic model
showing the negative effect of that practice on competition.
— order the defendant to pay the costs. The decision did not provide evidence either of the incompati-
bility with the common market of the alleged vertical inte-
gration through the applicants leasing companies for commer-Alternatively:cial and corporate jets and through Honeywell’s supply of
engine starters to engine manufacturers. Nor was the alleged
horizontal overlap between the two companies on the markets— acknowledge that Article 14 of the Provisions for thefor large regional jet engines, corporate jet engines and smallInterpretation of the Rules on Insurance Against the Riskmarine gas turbines supported by sufficient evidence.of Accident and of Occupational Disease is unlawful.
The applicant further points out that the commitments
proposed by the applicant to enter into were rejected by theCommission without proper analysis.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant also states that the Commission now paints an
entirely different picture of the market from that contained in
a decision 18 months earlier concerning the same market and The applicant in the present action, who was granted perma-
one of the same parties to the merger. nent invalidity at a rate of 130 % by decision of 15 April 1994,
objects to the Appointing Authority’s refusal to recognise anaggravation of his occupational illness liable to give rise toThe applicant submits, in addition, that its rights of defencepermanent invalidity pursuant to Article 14 of the Provisionswere not respected, in that the Commission did not give accessfor the Interpretation of the Rules on Insurance Against theto all relevant documents, or gave access to other documentsRisk of Accident and of Occupational Disease (the Provisions).without allowing a sufficient period of time in which to review
them. The applicant also claims that its right to be heard was
not respected at the start of the investigation.
In support of his claims the applicant puts forward the
following pleas:
— Invalidity of Article 14 of the Provisions, which stipulates
that accumulated allowances may not exceed 100 %, in
Action brought on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo so far as the Staff Regulations Committee does not have
Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European sufficient powers unconditionally recognised in the Staff
Communities Regulations or the Rules,
(Case T-212/01)— Breach of the principles of sound administration, duty to
have regard for the interests of officials, protection of(2001/C 331/41)legitimate expectations and non-discrimination,
(Language of the case: French)
— Misuse of powers in this case.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the