Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 15 July 2004 by easyJet Airline Company Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-300/04)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities 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 provisions 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 commitments in the annex to that decision.
The applicant, which is itself an airline company, seeks the annulment of that decision. It claims that 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 4064/891. It further submits that the Commission failed to define the relevant 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 substitutable 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 decision does not contain an adequate statement of reasons because the Commission failed to consider the parties dominance on any market and the applicability of Article 82 EC to their agreement.
____________1 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 2 December 989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings /OJ L 257/90 p. 3