Case T-63/02: Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni against European Central Bank
Date: 2002-06-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, action for annulment (EU), bank, pay rise, remuneration of work

C 131/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.6.2002

Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-62/02)

(2002/C 131/38)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS,
represented by Mr Trygve Olavson Laake and Mr Jan Magne
Langseth of Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Stavanger (Norway).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
applicant, or, in the alternative, reduce the duration of
the infringement in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul the fine imposed upon the applicant by Article 3(f)
of the Decision, or, in the alternative, substantially reduce
the amount of the fine imposed;

— grant its request for measures of organisation of pro-
cedure including the summoning and hearing of witnesses
and access to the Commission’s report from the Hearing;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— that the Commission incorrectly calculated the fine and
incorrectly applied the Guidelines on the method of
setting fines. On this point, the applicant states that the
fine was increased on the basis of the duration of the
infringement and because of the fact that the Commission
did not differentiate between the members of the cartel
in an appropriate manner. Moreover, the Commission
has not taken into account that the applicant was invited
to join a cartel that already existed, and that it never was
part of the ‘inner circle’, nor has the Commission taken
into account that Waardals implemented the agreements
in question only to a very slight degree. In setting the
fines, the defendant consequently infringed the principles
of equal treatment and proportionality and misapplied
the Guidelines mentioned above.

Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta
Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni against European Central Bank

(Case T-63/02)

(2002/C 131/39)

(Language of the case: German)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Decision which is challenged in this case is the same as
that
in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals -v-
Commission. The grounds and main arguments are similar to
those raised in that case.

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo
Poloni, of Frankfurt am Main, represented by Boris Karthaus,
Christian Roth and Tanja Raab-Rhein, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

In particular, the applicant submits:

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— that the Commission has based its calculation of the fine
on an incorrect assessment of the evidence and facts of
the case. Firstly, the Commission found that all addressees
of
the
the Decision committed an infringement of
same duration, 4 years and 1 month. In so doing, the
Commission should have not taken into account that
Waardals’ infringement ceased between April 1995 and
August 1995. The defendant should have ignored the
fact that the applicant withdrew from the cartel and
terminated its infringements immediately following the
investigations.

1. Annul the statements of earnings issued to the applicants

for the month of July 2001;

2. Order the defendant to issue the applicants with state-
ments of earnings on the basis of an annual salary
adjustment of at least 2,7 % in the month of July 2001;

3.

to issue the
In the alternative, order the defendant
applicants with statements of earnings in accordance with
the view of the law taken by the Court;

1.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 131/21

4. Order the defendant to pay the applicants the difference
between the statements of earnings actually issued and
the statements to be issued in accordance with claim 2,
or in the alternative claim 3;

5. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest the annual salary adjustment for the
year 2001 for staff of the European Central Bank. In 1999 the
Governing Council of the defendant decided that the annual
salary adjustment of the defendant was to be based on the
average development of nominal salaries of the fifteen national
central banks and the Bank for International Settlements as the
‘central bank’ of the central banks. This method was to be
applied for three years altogether. By letter of 11 July
2001 the Vice-President of the defendant informed the Staff
Committee that
the defendant
the Governing Council of
endorsed the Executive Board’s proposal for the salary adjust-
ment for 2001, in accordance with the methodology decided
in 1999. A table annexed to that letter showed that the salary
adjustment for 2001 was to take effect from 1 July 2001 and
would be 2,2 %.

On 13 July 2001 the applicants each received statements of
earnings which were based on the new calculations.

The applicants claim that the statements of earnings issued for
July 2001 should be annulled. They submit that the salary
adjustment in 2001 was not the subject of consultation with
the Staff Committee and is therefore unlawful. The method of
calculation applied for the salary adjustment in July 2001
further infringed Article 13 of the Conditions of Employment,
since it results in a loss of purchasing power at the place of
employment. A correct method of calculation must
take
account at least of the rate of inflation and thus produce a
figure of 2,7 %.

Action brought on 8 March 2002 by Masdar (U.K.) Ltd
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-68/02)

(2002/C 131/40)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 March 2002 by Masdar (U.K.)
Ltd, represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and Mr Patrick Green
of Rosemary Smith & Co, Crowthorne (United Kingdom).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s refusal to grant the applicant access
to the documents mentioned in the applicant’s request
dated 16 October 2001;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant provides consultancy services in the agricultural
sector. The applicant was employed by another company in
respect of two programs funded by the Commission’s TACIS
programme. The applicant brought proceedings against this
company before a national Court for the recovery of sums still
outstanding. In this respect, the applicant requested access to
two audit reports of the Commission established in respect of
the contracts in question. This access was refused by the
Commission.

The applicant submits that the Commission failed to give
reasons for this decision and has not respected the rights of
the applicant under Decision 94/90 (1). The applicant further
claims that the Commission violated the principle of good
administration.

(1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February
1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ L 46 of
18.2.1994, p. 58)