CELEX: C1998/234/56
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Honeywell Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-59/98)

C 234/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Foundation, established at Long Hanborough (United                 navigation calculations that the crew would otherwise
Kingdom), Irish Agri-Food Development Ltd, established             have to handle.
at Dublin, represented by Mia Declercq-Devisch and Kurt
Haegeman, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service         By the contested decision the Commission approved
in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue               individual aid granted by the French authorities to the
Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities                   French company Sextant, acting as project manager for
(Agent: Marie-JoseÂe Jonczy) Ð application for interim             research and development of a new FMS adapted to
measures in relation to a Commission decision of                   Airbus aircraft. Sextant is a subsidiary of Thomson CSF
17 March 1998 declaring inadmissible a tender submitted            and Aerospatiale.
by the applicant in response to an invitation to tender for
a project financed under the TACIS programme (Project
FDRUS 9701, entitled: Russia: Promoting Co-operative              The applicant is of the opinion that the Commission has
Ventures by Independent Farmers') Ð the President of the           infringed Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty by making an
Court of First Instance made an order on 26 May 1998,              incorrect assessment as to the precompetitive nature of the
the operative part of which is as follows:                         project and as to the incentive effect of the aid. Contrary
                                                                   to what the Commission asserts, the applicant believes
                                                                   that the aid should not have been approved under the
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Framework.
                                                                   The applicant further contends that, because of the
2. The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                   complexity of the market, the Commission should have
                                                                   opened the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By failing to do so, the Commission has infringed
                                                                   essential procedural requirements and has thus deprived
                                                                   the applicant of the opportunity to submit its comments
                                                                   on the proposed aid. If a procedure under Article 93(2)
                                                                   had been opened, the applicant would have submitted its
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Honeywell Inc. against
                                                                   observations. The applicant argues that the Commission
      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   would not have concluded that the aid was compatible
                       (Case T-59/98)                              with the Treaty if it had been duly informed of all the
                                                                   pertinent facts and implications through an Article 93(2)
                        (98/C 234/56)
                                                                   procedure.
              (Language of the case: English)                      Finally, the applicant submits that Article 190 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty has been infringed in that the Commission gave
                                                                   insufficient reasons for the contested decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
by Honeywell Inc., represented by Bernard van de Walle
de Ghelcke, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Offices of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                   Action brought on 21 April 1998 by Van Den Bergh
                                                                   Foods Limited against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-65/98)
Ð annul Decision No. N584/97 of the Commission                                             (98/C 234/57)
    concerning aid to Sextant Avionique for the
    development of a new flight management system                                 (Language of the case: English)
    adapted to Airbus aircraft, communicated to the
    applicant by letter D/50515 of 5 February 1998; and
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1998
                                                                   by Van Den Bergh Foods Limited, represented by Malcolm
                                                                   Nicholson and Michael Rowe, with an address for service
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
                                                                   Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.
The applicant, a company incorporated under law of the
United States of America, is a leading supplier of avionics        The applicant claims that the Court should:
systems and products for the commercial, military and
space market, who developed the industry's first flight            Ð declare the Commission decision of 11 March 1998
management system (FMS'). The FMS is the centrepiece                  relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of
of an aircraft, able to control the flight from take-off all           the EC Treaty (Case Nos. IV/34.073, IV/35.436 and
the way through to landing, performing all of the complex              IV/34.395) void and annul it in its entirety;