Notice for the OJ

 

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 23 April 2004 by ALENIA MARCONI SYSTEMS SpA against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-155/04)

    (Language of the case: Italian)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 against Commission of the European Communities by ALENIA MARCONI SYSTEMS SpA, represented by Francesco Sciaudone, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

-    Order the Commission to produce to the Court of First Instance all the records available to it concerning the complaint lodged by the applicant;

-    Annul and/or amend the contested decision;

-    Adopt any other measure which the Court of First Instance may consider appropriate to ensure that the Commission fulfils its obligations under Article 223 EC and, in particular, re-examines the complaint lodged on 27 October 1997;

-    Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and principal arguments adduced in support

The contested decision rejected the complaint lodged on 27 October 1997 under Article 3 of Regulation No 17/62 by the company then named Alenia Difesa, the business arm of FINMECCANICA SpA, in connection with the supposed absence of the preconditions for the applicability to Eurocontrol of the Community competition provisions and the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged abuses to which the complaint related. In particular, the applicant had complained of abuses of a dominant position engaged in by Eurocontrol and the distorting effects on competition of the management methods used in respect of the contracts, for the development of prototypes and of intellectual property rights, with reference to the contracts for the supply of air-traffic management equipment, and in the provision of assistance to national administrations.

In the first place, the decision is challenged on the ground of infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, particularly to the extent to which, although recognising in principle the applicability of Article 82 to Eurocontrol, with respect to the present case it held it not to be relevant, in so far as it denies the economic nature of the activities of standardisation and assistance to national administrations carried out by that body.

In addition to the infringement mentioned above, the decision is allegedly vitiated by the fact that the Commission:

(a) failed to examine from the substantive point of view the abusive nature of the conduct complained of in relation to the activity of standardisation, regulation and validation, or the activity of providing assistance to national administrations;

(b) decided, when considering from the substantive point of view, albeit briefly, the conduct of Eurocontrol relating to the purchasing of prototypes and the management of related intellectual property rights, that there was no abuse within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

Finally, the contested decision is, it is alleged, vitiated by the total lack of any adequate statement of reasons such as to prove the non-economic nature of certain activities of Eurocontrol and the lack of any abuse on the part of Eurocontrol within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

____________