Case T-161/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, horizontal agreement, restriction on competition, type of business

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

It is recalled in that regard that, on 29 July 2003, the applicant
participated in Brussels in the proceedings of a competition
selection board of which he was chairman. He travelled in a
hire vehicle placed at his disposal by the Commission. On his
return to Luxembourg, he filled up with fuel and it is specifi-
cally an alleged error on the sales receipt, in respect of the time
printed on that receipt, which has given rise to the present
action.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Articles 24, 62, 64 and 71 of the Staff
Regulations, of Article 11 of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
the ‘Guide to missions’
tions and of
(Commission Decision of 23 March 2003) and of
the
‘Guide à destination des liquidateurs des missions’ (Guide
for officials reponsible for calculating and settling mission
expenses) of March 2003;

the provisions of

— breach of

the principle of

the protection of

legitimate

expectations;

— the existence in this case of manifest errors of assessment.

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-156/05)

(2005/C 155/52)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

In November 2003, the applicant, an official of the defendant,
was informed that she had not been awarded any promotion
points. She challenged that decision on the ground that her
periodic report was not yet final when the promotion points
were awarded. Following that challenge and the improvement
of her report by the appeal assessor, the applicant's immediate
superior reviewed her case in the light of her final report but
again decided not to award her any promotion points for
2002. By her action, the applicant contests both the latter deci-
sion and the decision not to promote her under the 2003
procedure.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges manifest error of
assessment on the basis of an alleged lack of consistency
between the decision not to award her any promotion points
and the assessments and findings contained in her periodic
report. She also claims that the defendant compared her merits
not with those of all the officials of the institution who were
eligible for the same promotion, but only with those of the
other officials in her unit, in contravention both of Article 45
of the Staff Regulations and of point 8 of the Annex to the
Decision of the Court of Justice relating to promotions. In addi-
tion, she alleges irregularities in the opinion of the Promotion
Committee, namely failure to observe the audi alteram partem
rule and the rights of the defence.

As regards the challenging of the decision not to promote her,
the applicant maintains that her periodic report does not in
any way justify blocking her career, particularly since the criti-
cisms made of her in her periodic reports are vague and unsub-
stantiated.

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni,
residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Michèle Bouché,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the Complaints Committee of 8 March
2005 in so far as it rejects the applicant's two complaints of
22 September 2004 directed respectively against the distri-
bution of promotion points to which she was subject for
2002 and against her non-promotion under
the 2003
promotion procedure;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-161/05)

(2005/C 155/53)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG,
Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann
and U. Itzen, lawyers.

C 155/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

ence was made, and argues, in the alternative, that the principle
non bis in idem was infringed.

— set aside Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's Decision of
17 February 2005, in so far as they concern the applicant;

— or, in the alternative, reduce the fine laid down in Article 2

of the contested decision as appropriate;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In contested Decision No C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January
2005 the Commission asserted that the applicant and other
companies had infringed Article 81(1) EC (and, since 1 January
1994, Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement as well) by allo-
cating volume quotas and customers, agreeing price increases,
setting up a compensation mechanism, exchanging information
on sales volumes and prices, meeting regularly and being
involved in other forms of contact, in order to agree on and
implement the restrictions described. A fine was imposed on
the applicant as a result of these infringements.

The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its
claim. First of all, it contends that, as a result of the separation
and subsequent transfer of the business in question, no fine can
be imposed on it for legal reasons.

Secondly, the claimant submits that the imposition of a fine is
inadmissible even if
the applicant's liability for a fine is
accepted, given that exemption was granted to the successor
parent company of the company which made the application
for exemption, but not to the applicant as its former parent
company. In that respect, the applicant complains that there is
no obvious legal ground for such differentiation.

The third plea concerns the calculation of the fine. According
to the applicant, as a result of the 1996 Leniency Notice the
fine should have been reduced by 10 % given that it expressly
accepted the essential facts which form the basis of the points
of the complaint.

For the remainder, the applicant complains that it was given no
access to the files and of the gross illegality of the hearing offi-
cers' report and finally, of the legality of the order to bring the
infringement to an end.

Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband
deutscher Banken e.V. against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-163/05)

(2005/C 155/54)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband
deutscher Banken e.V. (Federal Association of German Banks)
Berlin, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2004) 3931 fin. COR —
Landesbank Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale of 20
October 2004;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant complains further that the calculation of the
basic amount was disproportionate in both absolute and rela-
tive terms and unreasonable, in the light of the Commission's
usual decision-making practice.

Fifthly, the applicant objects to the option to increase fines to
take account of previous procedures, to which specific refer-

The applicant objects to Commission Decision C(2004) 3931
fin. COR of 20 October 2004 concerning an aid measure of
the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Landesbank
Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale (Helaba). In the contested
decision the Commission asserts, inter alia, that the waiver of a
‘reasonable remuneration’ of 0.3 % p.a. in respect of the part
of the capital transferred by Land Hessen to Helaba amounts to
aid incompatible with the common market.