9.11.2002 EN C 274/27 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’ against the
Court of Justice of the European Communities
(Case T-257/02)
(2002/C 274/48)
(Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
claim for compensation for non-material loss and damageof any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;
— order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of
compensation for the damage she has suffered and willin future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all
necessary reservations, together with default interest at
the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
the date of payment;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate her for the non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of her occu-
pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which she hasreceived compensation.
The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are
similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court ofJustice.Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus
Boukes against the European Parliament
(Case T-258/02)(2002/C 274/49)
(Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes, domiciled inWaldbredimus (Luxembourg), represented by Eric Boigelot,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the
European Parliament, Julian Priestley, on 4 January 2002dismissing the applicant’s request of 4 October 2001
concerning the recognition of his marriage by the AIPN;
— annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
plaint, brought in accordance with Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations on 27 February 2002 and registered on
1 March 2002, to which the European Parliament hasstill not replied.
— in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal by the
AIPN to take account of the formalisation of his partnership,
treated as a civil marriage under Netherlands law and whichlegally records and recognises the family life that he leads in
the context of a stable relationship with his partner, for the
purpose of having it treated in the same way as marriage under
the Staff Regulations.
In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims:
— breach of Article F(1), and (2) of the Treaty on the
European Union and Article 3(2) EC;
— breach of Article 1a(1) and the second paragraph of
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the provisions
of the Staff Regulations governing remuneration and
reimbursement of expenses, allowances and pension
scheme;
— breach of Articles 7, 9 and 21 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
C 274/28 EN 9.11.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
— breach of Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms;
— Disregard of general principles of law, such as non-
discrimination and equal treatment, equal pay for men
and women, respect for private and family life, the
principle that the civil status of Community nationals is
to be governed by the legislation of their MemberState, proper administration, the protection of legitimate
expectations.
Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen Zentral-bank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-
mission of the European Communities
(Case T-259/02)
(2002/C 274/50)
(Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen
Zentralbank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft, established in Vien-na, represented by S. Völcker, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision of 11 June 2002
(C(2002)2091 final) in so far as it relates to the applicant;
— in the alternative, reduce the fine of
EUR 30 380 000 imposed on the applicant in the
defendant’s decision;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed
against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges
and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition onthe Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
concerned.The applicant submits first of all that the defendant wrongly
assumed that the arrangements in the present case could affecttrade between States. The Austrian banks’ arrangements were
restricted exclusively to Austria. Nor were they liable, given
the nature of the service in question, to partition the Austrian
market. There is therefore no infringement of Article 81
EC. Furthermore, there is no basis for the Commission’srequirement to cease the infringement in the future. The
Commission itself found that the applicant had brought the
arrangements to an end on 24 June 1998.
The applicant also contests the classification of the infringe-
ment as ‘very serious’ for the purposes of the guidelines on
the calculation of fines. When assessing the gravity of the
infringement, the Commission disregarded in particular the
fact that the Bankenrunden were not established by the banksexpressly to interfere with competition but, on the contrary,
took place over 50 years in accordance with Austrian law and
— to the end — with the cooperation of State authorities.
Furthermore, the applicant contests the calculation of the fine
imposed on it. In disregard of the links in the rural cooperative
sector and inconsistently with settled case-law, the Com-
mission attributed to the applicant market shares of undertak-
ings in which it had no stake and whose market conduct itcould not determine. In addition, the Commission rejected all
mitigating grounds put forward without considering them
sufficiently. Finally, the Commission misapplied the Leniency
Notice (
1).
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
in cartel cases (OJ C 207 of 18.7.1996, p. 4).
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Bank Austria
Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European
Communities
(Case T-260/02)
(2002/C 274/51)
(Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 2 September 2002 by Bank
Austria Creditanstalt AG, established in Vienna, represented
by C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Lawyers.