CELEX: C2002/274/49
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-258/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes against the European Parliament

9.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 274/27
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’ against the                       Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                                   Boukes against the European Parliament
                                                                                                   (Case T-258/02)
                         (Case T-257/02)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 274/49)
                         (2002/C 274/48)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes, domiciled in
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    Waldbredimus (Luxembourg), represented by Eric Boigelot,
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:                   European Parliament, Julian Priestley, on 4 January 2002
                                                                                dismissing the applicant’s request of 4 October 2001
                                                                                concerning the recognition of his marriage by the AIPN;
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
      claim for compensation for non-material loss and damage             —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
      of any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;             plaint, brought in accordance with Article 90(2) of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations on 27 February 2002 and registered on
                                                                                1 March 2002, to which the European Parliament has
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of                       still not replied.
      compensation for the damage she has suffered and will
      in future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all            —     in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.
      necessary reservations, together with default interest at
      the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
      the date of payment;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal by the
                                                                          AIPN to take account of the formalisation of his partnership,
                                                                          treated as a civil marriage under Netherlands law and which
                                                                          legally records and recognises the family life that he leads in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the context of a stable relationship with his partner, for the
                                                                          purpose of having it treated in the same way as marriage under
                                                                          the Staff Regulations.
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate her for the non-
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of her occu-               In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims:
pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which she has                 —     breach of Article F(1), and (2) of the Treaty on the
received compensation.                                                          European Union and Article 3(2) EC;
                                                                          —     breach of Article 1a(1) and the second paragraph of
                                                                                Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the provisions
The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are                      of the Staff Regulations governing remuneration and
similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court of                      reimbursement of expenses, allowances and pension
Justice.                                                                        scheme;
                                                                          —     breach of Articles 7, 9 and 21 of the Charter of
                                                                                Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
—     breach of Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European                    The applicant submits first of all that the defendant wrongly
      Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                  assumed that the arrangements in the present case could affect
      Fundamental Freedoms;                                              trade between States. The Austrian banks’ arrangements were
                                                                         restricted exclusively to Austria. Nor were they liable, given
—     Disregard of general principles of law, such as non-               the nature of the service in question, to partition the Austrian
      discrimination and equal treatment, equal pay for men              market. There is therefore no infringement of Article 81
      and women, respect for private and family life, the                EC. Furthermore, there is no basis for the Commission’s
      principle that the civil status of Community nationals is          requirement to cease the infringement in the future. The
      to be governed by the legislation of their Member                  Commission itself found that the applicant had brought the
      State, proper administration, the protection of legitimate         arrangements to an end on 24 June 1998.
      expectations.
                                                                         The applicant also contests the classification of the infringe-
                                                                         ment as ‘very serious’ for the purposes of the guidelines on
                                                                         the calculation of fines. When assessing the gravity of the
                                                                         infringement, the Commission disregarded in particular the
                                                                         fact that the Bankenrunden were not established by the banks
                                                                         expressly to interfere with competition but, on the contrary,
Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen Zentral-                  took place over 50 years in accordance with Austrian law and
bank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-                      — to the end — with the cooperation of State authorities.
            mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-259/02)                                 Furthermore, the applicant contests the calculation of the fine
                                                                         imposed on it. In disregard of the links in the rural cooperative
                        (2002/C 274/50)                                  sector and inconsistently with settled case-law, the Com-
                                                                         mission attributed to the applicant market shares of undertak-
                                                                         ings in which it had no stake and whose market conduct it
                  (Language of the Case: German)                         could not determine. In addition, the Commission rejected all
                                                                         mitigating grounds put forward without considering them
                                                                         sufficiently. Finally, the Commission misapplied the Leniency
                                                                         Notice ( 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen
                                                                         (1 ) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
Zentralbank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft, established in Vien-               in cartel cases (OJ C 207 of 18.7.1996, p. 4).
na, represented by S. Völcker, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission decision of 11 June 2002
      (C(2002)2091 final) in so far as it relates to the applicant;
—     in     the    alternative,     reduce     the      fine    of
      EUR 30 380 000 imposed on the applicant in the                     Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Bank Austria
      defendant’s decision;                                              Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                      Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                     (Case T-260/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                      (2002/C 274/51)
The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed                                        (Language of the Case: German)
against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until                    European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Bank
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks                  Austria Creditanstalt AG, established in Vienna, represented
concerned.                                                               by C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Lawyers.