CELEX: C2001/331/41
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-212/01: Action brought on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European Communities

24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/25
The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision declar-           European Communities on 14 September 2001 by Arnaldo
ing the notified concentration to be incompatible with the               Lucaccioni, resident in St-Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
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
applicant the decision failed to address, the question of the            Primarily:
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
sufficient evidence of the alleged practices of mixed bundling           —     award a total of EUR 125 000 as compensation for
of aircraft engines with avionics and non-avionics products.                   damage suffered,
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-           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
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                Alternatively:
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 the
for large regional jet engines, corporate jet engines and small                Interpretation of the Rules on Insurance Against the Risk
marine 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 the
Commission 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 an
                                                                         aggravation of his occupational illness liable to give rise to
The applicant submits, in addition, that its rights of defence
                                                                         permanent invalidity pursuant to Article 14 of the Provisions
were not respected, in that the Commission did not give access
                                                                         for the Interpretation of the Rules on Insurance Against the
to all relevant documents, or gave access to other documents
                                                                         Risk 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