Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2005 in Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request relating to a very large number of documents — Total refusal of access — Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination — Exceptions)
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), bank, consumer movement, provision of documents

C 155/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

3. Orders Chipita International SA to bear its own costs.

3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 April 2005

of 21 April 2005

in Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission
of the European Communities (1)

(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 —
Request relating to a very large number of documents —
Total refusal of access — Obligation to carry out a concrete,
individual examination — Exceptions)

(Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Compli-
ance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Reim-
bursement of bank guarantee charges — Non-contractual
liability of the Community)

(2005/C 155/27)

(Language of the case: German)

(2005/C 155/28)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-2/03: Verein für Konsumenteninformation, estab-
lished in Vienna (Austria), represented by A. Klauser, lawyer,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S.
Rating and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg), supported by Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG,
lawyer,
established in Vienna, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by Österrei-
chische Volksbanken AG, established in Vienna, and Niederös-
terreichische Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG, established in
Sankt Pölten (Austria), represented by R. Roniger, A. Ablasser
and W. Hemetsberger, lawyers — application for annulment of
Commission Decision D (2002) 330472 of 18 December 2002
relating to a request for access to the administrative file in Case
COMP/36.571/D-1, Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’ — the
Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger, P. Mengozzi,
M.E. Martins Ribeiro and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

1. Annuls Decision D (2002) 330472 relating to a request for
access to the administrative file in Case COMP/36.571/D-1,
Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

In Case T-28/03: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen
AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented initially by
F. Wiemer, and K. Moosecker, then by F. Wiemer, P. Nigge-
mann and B. Menkhaus, lawyers, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, with an
address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for compen-
sation in the form of reimbursement of the bank guarantee
charges incurred by the applicant following a fine fixed by
Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
(Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343,
p. 1), which was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95,
T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95,
T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-
88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v
Commission (‘Cement’) [2000] ECR II-491 — the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M.
Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is based on

Article 233 EC;

2. Dismisses as inadmissible the alternative request that the action,
in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC, be interpreted as being
an action for annulment or for failure to act;