Case T-300/04: Action brought on 15 July 2004 by easyJet Airline Company Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, Italy, action for annulment (EU), air transport, competition law, cooperation agreement, transport company

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/39

Action brought on 15 July 2004 by easyJet Airline
the
Company Limited against

the Commission of

nance on any market and the applicability of Article 82 EC to
their agreement.

European Communities

(Case T-300/04)

(2004/C 262/74)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 July 2004 by easyJet Airline
Company Limited, Luton, United Kingdom, represented by Mr
J. Cook and Ms L. Mills Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's Decision of 7 April 2004 relating
to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
COMP/38.284/D2 Société Air France/Alitalia Linee Aeree
Italiane S.p.A.);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission declared the provi-
sions of Article 81 paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty inapplicable
to the cooperation agreement between the airline companies
Air France and Alitalia for the period 12 November 2001 to
11 November 2007, subject to compliance with the commit-
ments in the annex to that decision.

that decision.

It claims that

The applicant, which is itself an airline company, seeks the
annulment of
the cooperation
agreement is a merger of the activities of the parties to it on
the routes between France and Italy and, as such, should have
been assessed under Council Regulation 4064/89 (1). It further
the Commission failed to define the relevant
submits that
markets correctly, by not considering the position of
the
parties to the agreement as purchasers of airport services and
concluding incorrectly that the two Paris airports are substitu-
table and that low cost carriers are not a viable alternative for
time-sensitive passengers on routes between France and Italy.

The applicant also considers that the Commission failed to
apply Article 81 paragraph 1 EC properly, by carrying out an
inadequate assessment of potential competition between the
parties to the agreement, failing to assess accurately whether
the agreement satisfies the four conditions set out in paragraph
3 of this article and basing its conclusions on manifest errors
in law and assessment. Regarding the commitments annexed to
the decision, it claims that the Commission failed to adequately
assess their effectiveness and whether they are sufficient to
restore competition. Finally, it submits that the contested deci-
sion does not contain an adequate statement of
reasons
because the Commission failed to consider the parties domi-

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 257/90,
p. 13).

Action brought on 28 July 2004 by Clearstream Banking
Aktiengesellschaft and Clearstream International sociéte
the
anonyme Luxembourg against

the Commission of

European Communities

(Case T-301/04)

(2004/C 262/75)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 July 2004 by Clearstream
Banking Aktiengesellschaft, having its registered office in Frank-
furt am Main, and Clearstream International sociéte anonyme
Luxembourg, having its registered office in Luxembourg, repre-
sented by Horst Satzky and Bernhard M. Maassen, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 2 June 2004 addressed
to them in Case COMP/38.096 and which: (i) establishes
that there was abuse of a dominant market position; and (ii)
imposes an obligation to discontinue such abuse; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission accuses the appli-
cants of breaching Article 82 EC. In the Commission's view the
applicants abused a dominant market position by ostensibly
refusing for almost two years to provide Euroclear Bank S.A.
(‘EB’) with so-called primary clearing and settlement services in
respect of German registered shares and by applying price
discrimination over five years against EB with regard to the
provision of primary clearing and settlement services.

The applicants dispute that charge and request that the decision
be declared void. The applicants' main head of complaint
centres on the Commission's assumption that the applicant
Clearstream Banking AG (‘CB’) enjoys a dominant position on
the relevant market.