CELEX: C2003/213/75
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-198/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European Communities

C 213/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.9.2003
included on the list of successful candidates because his mark             Pleas in law and main arguments
for the oral examination (18 out of 40) fell below the
minimum mark of 20.
The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:                        On 11 June 2002 the defendant adopted a decision to impose
                                                                           a fine on the applicant and seven other Austrian banks in the
                                                                           case COMP/36.571 (Austrian Banks). The applicant brought
—     Breach of the prohibition against discrimination on                  an action against that decision ( 1).
      grounds of nationality under Articles 12 EC and 39 EC
      and of the requirement that applicants in a competition
      be treated equally: by reason of his Austrian nationality,
      the applicant was not admitted to a seminar for preparing
      for the oral examination which was organised by the                  By the present action the applicant challenges the defendant’s
      German Department for Foreign Affairs and in which                   decision of 5 May 2003, in which the defendant gave notice
      Commission officials took part.                                      that its decision of 11 June 2002 would be published in the
                                                                           Official Journal of the European Communities and on the
—     Defective composition of the selection board, breach of              Internet. By the contested decision, the defendant rejected
      essential procedural requirements and infringement of                the applicant’s request as regards the defendant’s proposed
      Annex III to the Staff Regulations.                                  publication of the decision to impose a fine.
—     Manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers by
      the selection board.
                                                                           The applicant claims that publication of the decision to impose
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements through a                a fine in the form notified is inadmissible. It maintains that the
      failure to assess the applicant’s linguistic knowledge,              decision may not be published, since Article 21(1) of Regu-
      contrary to the notice of competition.                               lation No 17 does not allow decisions taken under Article 15
                                                                           of Regulation No 17 to be published.
( 1) Officially announced in OJ No C 110 A, 11.4.2001, p. 13.
                                                                           Moreover, the decision to impose a fine may not be disclosed
                                                                           in the non-confidential version used by the defendant, since it
                                                                           reproduces the decision to impose a fine word for word
                                                                           except for making the names of natural persons anonymous.
                                                                           Regulation No 17, however, allows the disclosure only of the
                                                                           substance of a decision which is to be made public.
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria Creditan-
stalt AG against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                           The applicant furthermore maintains that the passages of the
                          (Case T-198/03)                                  decision to impose a fine which relate to the year 1994 may
                                                                           not be published in any event, since those observations are not
                                                                           relevant to the operative part of the decision and the defendant
                          (2003/C 213/75)                                  was not competent to find that the applicant infringed
                                                                           Article 81 EC in the year 1994. Moreover, the publication of
                    (Language of the Case: German)                         the decision in the Official Journal of the European Community
                                                                           and on the Internet in a non-confidential version infringes
                                                                           Regulation No 45/2001 (2).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-260/02, Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission (OJ
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria
                                                                                2002 C 274, p. 28).
Creditanstalt AG, Vienna (Austria), represented by C. Zschocke
                                                                           (2 ) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
and J. Beninca, lawyers.                                                        the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
                                                                                with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
                                                                                institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
—     annul the Commission’s decision 5 May 2003;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.