CELEX: C2002/274/56
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-265/02: Action brought on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

C 274/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.11.2002
The applicant contends in addition that the infringement in              Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche Post
the present case did not appreciably affect trade between                AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
Member States. Many of the Bankenrunden had no international                                            ties
connection. Others could at any rate have no appreciable effect
on trade between States. Even if the infringement were to have
affected trade between States appreciably, there is in any                                        (Case T-266/02)
event no fault on the applicant’s part. In accordance with
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 it was therefore not
possible to fine the applicant.
                                                                                                  (2002/C 274/57)
Furthermore, in determining the applicant’s fine the defendant
made two errors of calculation with serious consequences.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
Also, the seriousness of the infringement and the existence of
mitigating grounds are misappraised in the decision and no
regard was had to the applicant’s extensive cooperation.
Finally, the decision violates the prohibition on retroactivity in
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
because the fine was determined on the basis of a framework              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for fines which, as a result of two amendments to the                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
defendant’s decision-making practice, was not introduced until           European Communities on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche
the infringement had come to an end.                                     Post AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and
                                                                         T. Lübbig, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt
              against the European Central Bank                          —     declare the Commission Decision of 19 June 2002 on
                                                                               State aid No 61/99 (ex No 153/96) void;
                         (Case T-265/02)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                        (2002/C 274/56)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt, Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.                            The subject of the contested decision is the below-cost selling
                                                                         of parcel services for business clients, compensating for which
                                                                         gives rise to cross-subsidisation which is contrary to the law
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              on aid. In its decision the Commission found that the State aid
                                                                         of EUR 572 million, which Germany granted to the applicant,
—     annul the formal warning given by the letter of 28 Febru-          was incompatible with the common market. It found that
      ary 2002;                                                          State compensation for the net additional costs of a rebate
                                                                         policy which reduces the costs normally incurred in providing
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              door to door parcel services which are open to competition
                                                                         favoured the undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1)
                                                                         EC.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The case has the same basis as Case T-83/02 (Pflugradt v                 The applicant contests that decision and points out that the
ECB) ( 1), and the pleas in law and arguments correspond to              same below-cost selling was the subject of the Commission
those which were put forward in that case.                               Decision of 20 March 2000 ( 1) adopted on the basis of
                                                                         Article 82 EC and that the two decisions came to very different
                                                                         conclusions regarding the duration, the amount and the source
( 1) OJ C 118, 18.5.2002, p. 30.                                         of financing of the alleged below-cost selling. The applicant
                                                                         submits that the below-cost selling alleged in the Decision is
                                                                         based on a miscalculation.