Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/212/51

    Case T-177/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — easyJet Airline v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Action brought by a third party — Admissibility — Air transport market — Commitments)

    SL C 212, 2.9.2006, p. 29–29 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.9.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 212/29


    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — easyJet Airline v Commission

    (Case T-177/04) (1)

    (Competition - Concentrations - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Action brought by a third party - Admissibility - Air transport market - Commitments)

    (2006/C 212/51)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially by J. Cook, J. Parker and S. Dolan, Solicitors, and subsequently by M. Werner and M. Waha, avocats, L. Mills, Solicitor, M. de Lasala Lobera and R. Malhotra, avocats)

    Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Bouquet and A. Whelan, Agents)

    Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, Agent)

    Re:

    Annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 February 2004 declaring compatible with the common market the concentration between Air France and KLM (Case No COMP/M.3280 — Air France/KLM) (OJ 2004 C 60, p. 5), whereby Air France was to acquire full control of KML

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action.

    2.

    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

    3.

    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.


    (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


    Top