CELEX: C2002/109/116
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-44/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank AG against the Commission of the European Communities

C 109/60               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings                  interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
      and all other consequential expenses.                                      prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
                                                                                 the interest prescribed.
                                                                           —     In any event:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                 make all further consequential orders or such further
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                        orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei                      put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-42/02)
                        (2002/C 109/115)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
                                                                           AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                           ties
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                            (Case T-44/02)
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,                                        (2002/C 109/116)
lawyers.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Primarily:
—     (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            pean Communities of 11 December 2001;                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
                                                                           Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
      (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                           M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
—     Alternatively:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      (1) annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
            as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
            incompatible with the common market;                           —     annul the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
                                                                                 COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for currency
      (2) annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering                    exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
            the recovery of the aid granted together with interest               AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
            from the date on which the aid became available;                     alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
                                                                                 AG by Article 3 of that decision;
—     In the further alternative:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
      annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,                AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
      in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,                      of the Court of First Instance.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/61
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
By the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of
EUR 28 million on the applicant for infringement of
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay EUR 1852721 to the appli-
Article 81(1) EC. In that decision, the Commission found that
                                                                              cants’ legal representatives within 14 days and declare
agreements had been concluded between various German
                                                                              Article 2(1)(f) of Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
banks, including the applicant, concerning the type and
                                                                              9 March 1968 (1) and Article 47 of Council Directive
amount of bank charges, the agreements in question having
                                                                              78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 (2). to be contrary to
been aimed, during the transitional period, at fixing the way in
                                                                              European Community law;
which charges were to be made for exchanging bank notes in
the currencies of the countries taking part in monetary union,
in the form of a percentage, together with a target price of
around 3 %.                                                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant denies that it took part in an agreement contrary
to Article 81(1) EC. It maintains that the evidence produced
by the Commission in that regard is insufficient. In addition,
the Commission failed to show the effects of the alleged
agreement on trade between Member States.
The Commission wrongly assumed that there was an ongoing                Pleas in law and main arguments
infringement. The calculation of the fine is wrong, because the
Commission did not carry out any assessment of the applicant’s
individual conduct.
In the course of the procedure, the Commission infringed the
                                                                        The applicants are managing directors of various Austrian
applicant’s rights of defence, inasmuch as it refused to allow
                                                                        companies. They claim that the obligation to disclose the
the applicant to have sight of the files relating to the
                                                                        annual accounts of companies limited by shares and equivalent
circumstances resulting in the decision to discontinue the
                                                                        partnerships is incompatible with primary Community law,
procedure against other banks and did not, in the contested
                                                                        the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community and the
decision, examine the statements made by the applicant in its
                                                                        case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
response to the main points raised in the complaint and in the
                                                                        On those grounds the applicants have to date refused to
oral hearing.
                                                                        disclose the annual accounts in the requisite form for the
                                                                        companies for which they are responsible. By the time this
The imposition of a fine on the applicant exceeds the                   action was brought fines of EUR 1 852 721 had been imposed
Commission’s discretionary power and discriminates against              on the applicants.
the applicant by comparison with those entities who were the
subject of the complaint and on whom it was decided not to
impose a fine. The Commission should likewise have decided
to discontinue the procedure as against the applicant.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the disclosure required by the
                                                                        directives in question entails the disclosure of confidential
                                                                        business information which is contrary to EC competition law
                                                                        and the general principle of the protection of business and
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer                    trade secrets. The publication of important and confidential
and Hannelore Danzer against the Council of the Euro-                   business data is also disproportionate and inadmissible in the
                          pean Union                                    light of Article 287 EC.
                         (Case T-47/02)
                       (2002/C 109/117)
                                                                        The applicants argue, further, that Article 2(1)(f) of Directive
                  (Language of the case: German)                        68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC have no
                                                                        basis in Article 44(2)(g) EC nor are they the type of provision
                                                                        which is properly covered by a ‘directive’ within the meaning
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 of Article 249 EC. The provisions do not harmonise existing
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              law but ‘create’ new law. Moreover, they are contrary to the
Communities on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and                   principle of proportionality and breach the Austrian data
Hannelore Danzer, Linz (Austrian Republic), represented by              protection law, the fundamental right to property, the funda-
J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and             mental right to freedom of economic activity and the protec-
P. Burgstaller.                                                         tion of private tax matters.