Case T-83/02: Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, action for annulment, data protection, labour relations, work contract

C 118/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2002

The applicant further claims that there was a violation of
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It submits that
there is no effective remedy before a court with full jurisdiction
against decisions of the Commission concerning the control
of concentrations. The Commission must
therefore itself
comply fully with the principle of impartiality. To that end,
the investigative and decision-making functions must, in the
applicant’s view, be entrusted to different persons or bodies,
which was not the case.

The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the general
principle of Community law that any person whose rights have
been infringed is entitled to an effective remedy. According to
the applicant, the contested decision interferes with the action
brought by the applicant against the decision declaring the
operation incompatible with the common market. Any annul-
ment which might follow from that first application would be
deprived of a great part of its effect as a result of the decision
at issue in the present application. The contested decision thus
also constitutes an infringement of the principle of good
administration, given that it obliged the applicant to bring a
fresh application in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the
first application.

The applicant then claims that the Commission exceeded its
territorial
jurisdiction by laying down certain conditions
for the separation. The applicant further submits that the
Commission did not comply with Article 8(4) of Regulation
No 4064/89. That article, according to the applicant, requires
the Commission to restore effective competition, not to restore
competitors in the market in question, as was done in the
contested decision. In that decision, finally, the Commission
also failed to comply with the general principle of pro-
portionality and made manifest errors of assessment.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
30.12.1989, p. 1, republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990, p. 13).

Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
the European Central Bank

(Case T-83/02)

(2002/C 118/47)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the formal warning given by letter of 28.2.2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an employee of the defendant, argues in support
of his claim that the formal warning at issue is null and void,
inasmuch as it is based on incorrect factual allegations, and
that the complaints on which that warning is based are totally
unjustified. The applicant’s conduct does not reflect any
continuing pattern of poor performance, and the applicant has
adequately performed his contractual duties.

Furthermore, the defendant is precluded by the obligation of
an employer to have regard for the welfare and interests of his
employees from taking into account certain facts by way of
justification for the giving of
issue. An
employer is under an obligation forthwith to rebuke the
person concerned in respect of any matters on which he
proposes to rely by way of justification for the adoption of
measures adversely affecting the employee. In addition, the
defendant’s conduct infringes the European rules on data
protection.

the warning at