CELEX: C2002/109/105
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-30/02: Action brought on 13 February 2002 by Wolfgang Leonhardt against the European Parliament

C 109/54                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.            company that wishes to acquire merchants, i.e. process
                                                                          payments made with a credit card by customers at those
                                                                          merchants’ businesses, must first issue a certain number of
                                                                          credit cards to customers. The applicants specialise in acquiring
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           activities.
The applicant claims that she has suffered non-material                   According to the applicants, the contested decision violates
damage on account of a breach of the principle of sound                   the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.
administration and failure to act in good faith and to fulfil the
duty of cooperation as regards the drawing up of her
consecutive staff reports. In addition, according to the appli-           Firstly, the applicants state that the decision lacks adequate
cant, those faults have been repeated time and again and testify          reasoning on why the rule in question does not constitute a
to a vexatious attitude.                                                  significant barrier to trade.
                                                                          The applicants also claim that the Commission erred in law
                                                                          when substituting reasoning under Article 81(3) EC Treaty for
                                                                          reasoning under Article 81(1) EC Treaty. According to the
                                                                          applicants, the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of
                                                                          a restriction on competition can only be assessed under
Action brought on 4 February 2002 by First Data Corpor-                   Article 81(3) EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, however,
ation, FDR Limited and First Data Merchant Services                       the Commission seems to argue that the rule in question falls
Corporation against the Commission of the European                        outside the scope of Article 81(1) EC Treaty since its benefits
                            Communities                                   outweigh the restriction on competition. This type of reasoning
                                                                          can, according to the applicants, only be applied under
                           (Case T-28/02)                                 Article 81(3) EC Treaty.
                         (2002/C 109/104)                                 Finally, the applicants claim that the rule in question does
                                                                          restrict competition. The consequence of the rule is that, in
                    (Language of the case: English)                       order to start acquiring activities, a company must first build
                                                                          up banking activities to be able to issue cards to customers.
                                                                          This is, according to the applicants, a barrier to entry into the
                                                                          market of acquiring activities. Furthermore, the applicants
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 point out that the application of this rule is unclear, since the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                number of cards to be issued is dependent on undefined
European Communities on 4 February 2002 by First Data                     criteria. According to the applicants, the Commission should
Corporation, FDR Limited and First Data Merchant Services                 have conducted an investigation on whether this rule is applied
Corporation, represented by Mr Pierre Bos and Mr Morten                   in a uniform and non-discriminatory way.
Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001
      relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                    Action brought on 13 February 2002 by Wolfgang
      No COMP/29.373 — Visa International) as regards                              Leonhardt against the European Parliament
      Article 1, fifth indent;
                                                                                                    (Case T-30/02)
—     order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by the
      applicants in the present proceedings.
                                                                                                  (2002/C 109/105)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                              (Language of the case: French)
The applicants contest the Decision of the Commission that
the ‘no-acquiring-without-issuing rule’ of the Visa Corporation           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
is not an appreciable restriction on trade and therefore falls            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
outside the scope of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and                   13 February 2002 by Wolfgang Leonhardt, residing in La
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. This rule requires that a                Hulpe (Belgium), represented by H. Tagaras, avocat.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 109/55
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the defendant’s decision of 11 June 2001 to reset            —     annul the decisions taken by the Commission in relation
      at zero the applicant’s tally of promotion points after his              to commencing proceedings before the United States
      promotion in 2000;                                                       District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with
                                                                               Docket Number CV-02-0164, on 9 January 2002, in the
                                                                               name of the European Community against the applicants;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the present
                                                                               proceedings, including those of the applicants and any
                                                                               intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant objects to the decision of the European Parlia-
ment to reset at zero the applicant’s stock of promotion points
following his promotion in 2000, thereby preventing the
                                                                         The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
applicant from carrying over to his new grade the promotion
                                                                         by the European Commission before a United States Court, in
points that he acquired over and above the relevant threshold
                                                                         which it is seeking damages in respect of allegedly unpaid
for promotion.
                                                                         customs duties and VAT, and relief in respect to other
                                                                         economic and non-economic injuries arising therefrom. The
                                                                         payment of these customs duties and VAT has allegedly been
The resetting at zero is the result of a transitional scheme prior       avoided by the smuggling of cigarettes into the European
to the implementation of a new promotion system in the                   Union. This is the third time that the European Commission
European Parliament. Under that transitional scheme the tally            has commenced such proceedings (1). In the current proceed-
of promotion points is automatically reset at zero following             ings, the Commission is also acting as agent for Member States
a promotion, whereas the definitive scheme provides that                 in the recovery of these taxes allegedly owed to them.
promotion points acquired over and above the relevant
threshold are carried over to the new grade.
                                                                         The grounds and arguments are similar to those arising in Case
                                                                         T-260/01 (2).
According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle
prohibiting discrimination.                                              (1) The decision to commence the first proceedings is being contested
                                                                             in Case T-379/00 (OJ C 79 of 10..3.2001) and the decision to
                                                                             commence the second proceedings in Cases T-260/01 and
                                                                             T-272/01 (OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39 and p. 45).
                                                                         (2) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39.
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Japan Tobacco,
Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                                Action brought on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda
                                                                             Guijarro against the Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-31/02)
                                                                                                   (Case T-32/02)
                       (2002/C 109/106)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 109/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 15 February 2002 by Japan                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Tobacco, Inc. and JT International S.A., represented by                  Communities on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda Guijarro,
Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Paul Lomas of Freshfields                      residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, lawyer,
Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom).                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.