Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/048/48

    Case T-209/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Honeywell International Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Competition — Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Ineffectiveness of a partial challenge to the decision — Aeronautical markets — Action that cannot lead to annulment of the decision)

    OJ C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 26–26 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.2.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 48/26


    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Honeywell International Inc. v Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-209/01) (1)

    (Action for annulment - Competition - Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Ineffectiveness of a partial challenge to the decision - Aeronautical markets - Action that cannot lead to annulment of the decision)

    (2006/C 48/48)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Honeywell International Inc. (Morristown, New Jersey (United States)) (represented by: K. Lasok QC and F. Depoortere, lawyer)

    Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Hellström and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents)

    Interveners in support of the defendant: Rolls-Royce plc (London, United Kingdom, represented by A. Renshaw, Solicitor) and Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United States, represented by T. Soames, J. Davies, A. Ryan, Solicitors, and P. Camesasca, lawyer)

    Application for

    the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/134/EC of 3 July 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2220 — General Electric/Honeywell) (OJ 2004 L 48, p. 1)

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1)

    Dismisses the application;

    2)

    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners.


    (1)  OJ C 331 of 24. 11. 2001.


    Top