24.11.2001 EN C 331/23 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 10 September 2001 by Volkswagen Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the applicant
submits that Volkswagen’s written and oral requests were AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties unilateral measures and not agreements within the meaning of
Article 81(1) EC. They were not incorporated in the dealership
agreement and the Contracting Parties did not subsequently(Case T-208/01)make them part of the agreement.
(2001/C 331/38)
Further, the applicant maintains that there is no appreciable
effect on trade between the Member States. It has not been
(Language of the case: German) proved that increasing or decreasing the discount by a few
percentage points would have led to a noticeable increase inparallel trade.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-Finally, the applicant submits that the fine imposed on it isties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theunfounded. Even supposing that there were infringement ofEuropean Communities on 10 September 2001 by Volkswag-Article 81(1), the fine is excessively high.en AG, Wolfsburg (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold,
lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul the Commission’s decision of 29 June 2001 (Case
COMP/F-2/36.693 — Volkswagen);Action brought on 12 September 2001 by Honeywell
International Inc. against the Commission of the European
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 2 of Communities
the Decision;
(Case T-209/01)— order the Commission to pay the costs.
(2001/C 331/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments (Language of the case: English)
At the time of the launch of the new ‘VW Passat’ onto
the German market, the Volkswagen marketing director forAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-Germany sent a circular urging German Volkswagen dealersties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theand garages not to sell the new models for less than theEuropean Communities on 12 September 2001 by Honeywellrecommended retail price and to observe ‘strict price disci-International Inc., represented by Paul Lasok QC and Fredericpline’.Depoortere of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Brussels (Belgium).
On the basis of a complaint made by a car buyer, the
Commission initiated a formal procedure, which led to the The applicant claims that the Court should:
adoption of the contested Decision. In the Decision, the
Commission found that the applicant, by fixing the selling— join the present case with the action brought by Generalprice of the VW Passat on the basis of the abovementionedElectric Co. for annulment of the Commission’s decisionrequest, had infringed Article 81(1) EC. A fine of EURof 3 July 2001,30,96 million was imposed on the applicant.
— order such measures of inquiry (including the hearing as
witnesses or, as the case may be, as experts of the personsIn support of its claims, the applicant argues that the conductidentified in this application) as may appear necessary,complained of and not disputed by it did not infringe
Article 81(1) EC. It admits that its employees contravened— annul the Commission’s decision of 3 July 2001,German competition law in a way attributable to it. However,
the applicant submits that Article 81(1) does not contain a
— take such other or further steps as justice may require, prohibition on making recommendations. That provision
prohibits only anticompetitive agreements, decisions and
concerted practices but not requests and mere recommen- — order the Commission to pay its own and Honeywell’s
costs. dations.
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