CELEX: C1999/121/39
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-33/99: Action brought on 4 February 1999 by Elvira Méndez Pinedo against the European Central Bank

1.5.1999                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 121/17
      — the Commission’s reasoning was defective, and                           — is disproportionate to reductions granted in other
                                                                                     cases.
      — the Commission relied on a case handler who has                   (1) OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4.
            displayed substantial bias against the applicant.             (2) Commission guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed
                                                                              pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5)
                                                                              of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3)..
2. I n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e E C T r e a t y , i n c l u d i n g
    fundamental principles of Community
    l a w : The Commission, having induced the applicant
    to cooperate extensively pursuant to the newly issued
    Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of
    fines in cartel cases (the leniency notice) (1) retroactively
    applied the new fining guidelines (2) which generally lead            Action brought on 4 February 1999 by Elvira Méndez
    to fines higher than those assessed under the Commission’s                      Pinedo against the European Central Bank
    practice prevailing at the time when the applicant decided
    to cooperate. This conduct:                                                                     (Case T-33/99)
                                                                                                   (1999/C 121/39)
      — violates the principle of protection of legitimate
            expectations,
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
      — violates the fundamental principle of a fair adminis-             An action against the European Central Bank was brought
            trative procedure,                                            before the Court of First Instance on 4 February 1999 by Elvira
                                                                          Méndez Pinedo, represented by Antonio Méndez Garcı́a, of the
                                                                          Madrid Bar, with an address for services at Calle Bravo Murillo
      — violates the principle of good administrative practice            36, 2nd floor, 28015, Madrid, Spain.
            and consistent application of Community law.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should
                                                                          examine the legality of the selection procedure with which this
3. I n f r i n g e m e n t o f A r t i c l e 1 5 ( 2 ) o f R e g u -      action is concerned.
    l a t i o n N o 1 7 : In setting the fine at ECU 100 million
    (before application of the leniency notice) the Commission
    infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. In particular:           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          The applicant complains that it was materially impossible for
      — the fine is disproportionate to fines assessed against            her to submit her application in a procedure for the selection
            co-defendants in this case,                                   of staff organised by the European Central Bank, the announce-
                                                                          ment for which appeared in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                          Communities of 26 May 1998 (C 159). Such impossibility
                                                                          derived from the fact that the time limit laid down in the
      — the Commission erred in assessing the duration of the             notice for the submission of applications was much shorter
            infringement committed by the applicant,                      than that normally set in the Official Journal distributed on
                                                                          Spanish territory.
      — the Commission improperly took into account aggra-                In support of her claims, the applicant puts forward the
            vating circumstances, and                                     following pleas:
                                                                          — Infringement of essential procedural requirements laid
      — the Commission improperly disregarded extenuating                      down in Article 29 of the staff Regulations of officials of
            factors.                                                           the European Communities and Annex III thereto.
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of equal treatment or non-
4. M i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l e n i e n c y n o t i c e :         discrimination, in that a time limit as short as that laid
    The Commission improperly applied its own leniency                         down for the submission of applications in the competition
    notice vis-à-vis the applicant. The applicant should have                  at issue favours candidates residing in Luxembourg and
    been accorded a reduction of at least 50 %. In particular,                 others who became aware of the selection procedure by
    the reduction of merely 30 % granted by the Commission:                    other means.
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of good management and sound
                                                                               administration in relation to Article 27 of the Staff
      — puts the applicant into the same category as other                     Regulations of officials of the European Communities.
            co-defendants in this case, whose cooperation was —
            by the Commission’s own admission — far less
            extensive,