Case T-258/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes against the European Parliament
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, marriage, matrimonial law

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/27

Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’ against the
Court of Justice of the European Communities

Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus
Boukes against the European Parliament

(Case T-257/02)

(2002/C 274/48)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-258/02)

(2002/C 274/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court 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.

Justice of

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 damage
of 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 will
in 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;

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 in
Waldbredimus (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 2002
dismissing 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 has
still not replied.

— in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 has
received 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 of
Justice.

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 which
legally 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

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

— breach of Articles 8, 12 and 14 of

the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental 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 Member
State, proper administration, the protection of legitimate
expectations.

The applicant submits first of all that the defendant wrongly
assumed that the arrangements in the present case could affect
trade 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’s
in the future. The
requirement to cease the infringement
Commission itself found that the applicant had brought the
arrangements to an end on 24 June 1998.

Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen Zentral-
the Com-
bank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft against

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

EUR 30 380 000 imposed on the applicant
defendant’s decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

fine

of
in the

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 on
the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
concerned.

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 banks
expressly 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 it
could 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 the
European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Bank
Austria Creditanstalt AG, established in Vienna, represented
by C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Lawyers.