Case T-250/01: Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank AG against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), bank, euro, exchange rate

C 3/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.

The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
specifications in the contested decision.

contested act

The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,
the
violates Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
components in which these functions must be inherent.
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.

— annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit

him to Competition PE/90/A

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı´a Técnica
(technical engineering), is not accepted.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).

(1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
(3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.

Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader
Rivas against European Parliament

Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
AG against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-249/01)

(2002/C 3/62)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Case T-250/01)

(2002/C 3/63)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-
da (Madrid), represented by Diego Lo´ pez Garrido, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:

concerning a proceeding pursuant

— annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain
documents
to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating
to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro
zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-
mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001
on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain
competition proceedings;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.

— the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
any certainty the conditions for taking part
in the
appointment procedure.

— the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
according to his curriculum vitae published on the
internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
being considered a suitable candidate.

— the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
rules of
the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
refused him access to certain document regarding the
appointment procedure.

Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
against Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
European Union

(Case T-254/01)

(2002/C 3/64)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case T-255/01)

(2002/C 3/65)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the
European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
General of the Court;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of
fluorescent
integrated electronic compact
lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
China in so far as it applies to the applicants;

The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.

— order the Council to pay the costs.