Case T-11/03: Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth Afari against the European Central Bank
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EC action to establish liability, European Central Bank, administrative sanction, anti-discriminatory measure, psychological harassment

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/27

Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth
Afari against the European Central Bank

— Violation of the principle of proportionality as to the

penalty.

(Case T-11/03)

(2003/C 70/43)

— Violation of the Council Directive 2000/43 of 29 June
2000 implementing the principle of equal treament
between persons
racial and ethnic
irrespective of
origin (1).

(Language of the case: English)

(1) Official Journal L 180, of 19.7.2000, p. 22.

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth Afari, Frankfurt,
Germany, represented by Mr Georges Vandersanden and
Mr Laure Levi, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the disciplinary decision of the ECB of 5 November
2002 imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand;

Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo Co., Ltd.
and Nintendo of Europe GmbH against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-13/03)

(2003/C 70/44)

— order that the ECB pays 1 euro as compensation for the

(Language of the case: English)

moral predudice;

— order that the ECB pays the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant in the present case challenges the decision of
the defendant’s Administration imposing on her a disciplinary
measure consisting of a written reprimand. The main charges
against her were that she made allegations of racism and
accused members of the management of the ECB of encourag-
ing xenophobia.

She complains that at
the beginning of this disciplinary
procedure there was a difficult relationship with a colleague
who put her under very strong pressure, harassment and
discriminated against her in many ways. The conflict escalated
to a written complaint, as she unsuccessfully called the
attention of her management on that situation.

The Appellant invokes the following as pleas in law:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo
Co., Ltd., Kyoto,
Japan and Nintendo of Europe GmbH,
Großostheim, Germany, represented by Mr Ian Forrester, QC,
Mr
John Pheasant, Solicitor, Mr Mark Powell, Solicitor,
Ms Ciara Kennedy-Loest, Solicitor and Mr James Killick,
Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 3 of the decision to the extent that it

imposes an unlawfully large fine on Nintendo;

— set a lower fine (if any) in such amount as may appear
appropriate to the Court in the exercise of its unlimited
discretion pursuant to Article 229 EC;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs

— take such other or further steps as justice may require

— Violation of the duty to state reasons, of the right to good

Pleas in law and main arguments

administration and of the obligation of due care.

— Violation of the rights of defense, in so far as the burden
of the proof would have been illegally put on the
applicant’s shoulders and her right to be heard, as well as
the principle of impartiality, would have been ignored.

— Manifest error of appreciation in relation to the substance
of the case. Concretely, it is submitted that the applicant
has violated neither Article 4(1) of Conditions of Employ-
ment for Staff of the ECB, nor the ECB Code of Conduct.

The applicants contest the decision of the Commission decision
C(2002) 4072 final of 30 October 2002 in Cases COMP/
35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distri-
bution and COMP/36.321 Omega-Nintendo, regarding an
infringement of Article 81 (1) of the EC Treaty insofar as it
imposes an unlawfully large fine on the applicants.

In support of their application, the applicants claim that the
Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements