Case T-212/01: Action brought on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), occupational disease, regulations for civil servants

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/25

The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision declar-
ing the notified concentration to be incompatible with the
common market and the EEA Agreement.

European Communities on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni, resident in St-Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
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
of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 for declaring a merger
incompatible with the common market. According to the
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.

The decision did not, according to the applicant, provide
sufficient evidence of the alleged practices of mixed bundling
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.
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-
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
for large regional jet engines, corporate jet engines and small
marine gas turbines supported by sufficient evidence.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Primarily:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 16 November 2000,

— award a total of EUR 125 000 as compensation for

damage suffered,

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Alternatively:

— acknowledge that Article 14 of the Provisions for the
Interpretation of the Rules on Insurance Against the Risk
of Accident and of Occupational Disease is unlawful.

further points out

The applicant
the commitments
proposed by the applicant to enter into were rejected by the
Commission without proper analysis.

that

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
one of the same parties to the merger.

The applicant submits, in addition, that its rights of defence
were not respected, in that the Commission did not give access
to all relevant documents, or gave access to other documents
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.

Action brought on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-212/01)

(2001/C 331/41)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present action, who was granted perma-
nent invalidity at a rate of 130 % by decision of 15 April 1994,
objects to the Appointing Authority’s refusal to recognise an
aggravation of his occupational illness liable to give rise to
permanent invalidity pursuant to Article 14 of the Provisions
for the Interpretation of the Rules on Insurance Against the
Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease (the Provisions).

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
so far as the Staff Regulations Committee does not have
sufficient powers unconditionally recognised in the Staff
Regulations or the Rules,

— Breach of the principles of sound administration, duty to
have regard for the interests of officials, protection of
legitimate expectations and non-discrimination,

— Misuse of powers in this case.