Case T-44/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank AG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), bank, bank charges, euro, exchange transaction, infringement of EU law

C 109/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

and all other consequential expenses.

interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
the interest prescribed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— In any event:

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.

make all further consequential orders or such further
orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.

Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-42/02)

(2002/C 109/115)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Primarily:

— (1)

annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities of 11 December 2001;

(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Alternatively:

(1)

(2)

annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
incompatible with the common market;

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering
the recovery of the aid granted together with interest
from the date on which the aid became available;

— In the further alternative:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.

Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-44/02)

(2002/C 109/116)

(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 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges
currency
exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
AG by Article 3 of that decision;

for

annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,
in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,

— order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance.

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/61

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Court should:

for

By the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of
EUR 28 million on the applicant
infringement of
Article 81(1) EC. In that decision, the Commission found that
agreements had been concluded between various German
banks,
including the applicant, concerning the type and
amount of bank charges, the agreements in question having
been aimed, during the transitional period, at fixing the way in
which charges were to be made for exchanging bank notes in
the currencies of the countries taking part in monetary union,
in the form of a percentage, together with a target price of
around 3 %.

The applicant denies that it took part in an agreement contrary
to Article 81(1) EC. It maintains that the evidence produced
by the Commission in that regard is insufficient. In addition,
the Commission failed to show the effects of the alleged
agreement on trade between Member States.

The Commission wrongly assumed that there was an ongoing
infringement. The calculation of the fine is wrong, because the
Commission did not carry out any assessment of the applicant’s
individual conduct.

to have sight of

In the course of the procedure, the Commission infringed the
applicant’s rights of defence, inasmuch as it refused to allow
the applicant
the files relating to the
circumstances resulting in the decision to discontinue the
procedure against other banks and did not, in the contested
decision, examine the statements made by the applicant in its
response to the main points raised in the complaint and in the
oral hearing.

The imposition of a fine on the applicant exceeds the
Commission’s discretionary power and discriminates against
the applicant by comparison with those entities who were the
subject of the complaint and on whom it was decided not to
impose a fine. The Commission should likewise have decided
to discontinue the procedure as against the applicant.

Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer
and Hannelore Danzer against the Council of the Euro-
pean Union

(Case T-47/02)

(2002/C 109/117)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and
Hannelore Danzer, Linz (Austrian Republic), represented by
J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and
P. Burgstaller.

— order the defendant to pay EUR 1852721 to the appli-
cants’ legal representatives within 14 days and declare
Article 2(1)(f) of Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
9 March 1968 (1) and Article 47 of Council Directive
78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 (2).
to be contrary to
European Community law;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are managing directors of various Austrian
companies. They claim that the obligation to disclose the
annual accounts of companies limited by shares and equivalent
partnerships is incompatible with primary Community law,
the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community and the
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
On those grounds the applicants have to date refused to
disclose the annual accounts in the requisite form for the
companies for which they are responsible. By the time this
action was brought fines of EUR 1 852 721 had been imposed
on the applicants.

The applicants submit that the disclosure required by the
directives in question entails the disclosure of confidential
business information which is contrary to EC competition law
and the general principle of the protection of business and
trade secrets. The publication of important and confidential
business data is also disproportionate and inadmissible in the
light of Article 287 EC.

The applicants argue, further, that Article 2(1)(f) of Directive
68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC have no
basis in Article 44(2)(g) EC nor are they the type of provision
which is properly covered by a ‘directive’ within the meaning
of Article 249 EC. The provisions do not harmonise existing
law but ‘create’ new law. Moreover, they are contrary to the
principle of proportionality and breach the Austrian data
protection law, the fundamental right to property, the funda-
mental right to freedom of economic activity and the protec-
tion of private tax matters.