Case T-165/03: Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), development aid, foreign policy, recruitment

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
of 27th February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by
the council on the 27th February 2003 to the confirma-
tory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by fax on the
3rd February 2002 under Article 7(2) of the Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the applicant’s counsel
on 28 February 2003;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the same as in cases T-47/
3 Sison/Council and Commission (1) and T-110/03 Sison/
Council (2), pursues the annulment of the defendant’s decision
not to get him access to all the documents which were the
basis of the Council Decision 2002/974/CE (3), repealing the
previous Decision 2002/848/EC (4), by which the applicant
itself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the list
pertinent to Article 2(3), of Regulation 2580/2001 (5).

In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:

— The infringement of the right of access to documents, as
forseen in Articles 1(2) EU, 6(1) EU, 255 EC and 4(1)(a),
4(6) and 9(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (6).

— The violation of the principle of sound adminstration, as

well as the duty to state reasons.

— The violation of the general principle of Community Law
enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and especially of the right to
be informed promptly, in an understandable language
and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.

(5) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
to combatting terrorism (OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 70).

(6) Regulation of the European Parliement and the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commisson documents (OJ L 145, of 31.5.2001, p. 43).

Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-165/03)

(2003/C 213/74)

(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 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier,
resident
represented by
W. Schmolke, lawyer.

in Amsterdam (Netherlands),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and set aside the decision of the selection board of
30 July 2002 not to include him on the list of successful
candidates in Competition COM/A/601 for the field of
external relations;

— order the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 in compen-
sation for the non-material damage caused to the him;

— order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to
Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure if appropriate.

( 1) OJ C 101, of 26.4.2003, p. 41.
( 2) Not published in the OJ yet.
( 3) Council Decision of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ
L 337, of 13.12.2002, p. 85).

( 4) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combatting terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
L 295, of 30.10.2002, p. 12).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Competition COM/A/601 (1) was held in order to recruit
administrators in the fields of external relations and adminis-
tration of aid to non-member countries. The applicant, an
Austrian national, submitted an application for the field of
foreign relations. He was successful in the written procedure
and was admitted to the oral examination. By the contested
informed that he could not be
decision he was, however,

C 213/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

included on the list of successful candidates because his mark
for the oral examination (18 out of 40) fell below the
minimum mark of 20.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

— Breach of

the prohibition against discrimination on
grounds of nationality under Articles 12 EC and 39 EC
and of the requirement that applicants in a competition
be treated equally: by reason of his Austrian nationality,
the applicant was not admitted to a seminar for preparing
for the oral examination which was organised by the
German Department for Foreign Affairs and in which
Commission officials took part.

— Defective composition of the selection board, breach of
essential procedural requirements and infringement of
Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

— Manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers by

the selection board.

— Breach of essential procedural requirements through a
failure to assess the applicant’s linguistic knowledge,
contrary to the notice of competition.

( 1) Officially announced in OJ No C 110 A, 11.4.2001, p. 13.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria Creditan-
stalt AG against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-198/03)

(2003/C 213/75)

(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 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria
Creditanstalt AG, Vienna (Austria), represented by C. Zschocke
and J. Beninca, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision 5 May 2003;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

On 11 June 2002 the defendant adopted a decision to impose
a fine on the applicant and seven other Austrian banks in the
case COMP/36.571 (Austrian Banks). The applicant brought
an action against that decision (1).

By the present action the applicant challenges the defendant’s
decision of 5 May 2003, in which the defendant gave notice
that its decision of 11 June 2002 would be published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities and on the
Internet. By the contested decision, the defendant rejected
the applicant’s request as regards the defendant’s proposed
publication of the decision to impose a fine.

The applicant claims that publication of the decision to impose
a fine in the form notified is inadmissible. It maintains that the
decision may not be published, since Article 21(1) of Regu-
lation No 17 does not allow decisions taken under Article 15
of Regulation No 17 to be published.

Moreover, the decision to impose a fine may not be disclosed
in the non-confidential version used by the defendant, since it
reproduces the decision to impose a fine word for word
except for making the names of natural persons anonymous.
Regulation No 17, however, allows the disclosure only of the
substance of a decision which is to be made public.

The applicant furthermore maintains that the passages of the
decision to impose a fine which relate to the year 1994 may
not be published in any event, since those observations are not
relevant to the operative part of the decision and the defendant
was not competent
infringed
Article 81 EC in the year 1994. Moreover, the publication of
the decision in the Official Journal of the European Community
and on the Internet in a non-confidential version infringes
Regulation No 45/2001 (2).

the applicant

to find that

(1) Case T-260/02, Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission (OJ

2002 C 274, p. 28).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
(OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).