CELEX: C2002/003/63
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-250/01: Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank AG against Commission of the European Communities

C 3/36                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit
The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,                     him to Competition PE/90/A
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
                                                                           engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
                                                                           for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
                                                                           assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
                                                                           A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
specifications in the contested decision.
                                                                           selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
                                                                           to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
                                                                           ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified          not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as             degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs                  lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,               candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
the contested act violates Council Regulation (EEC)                        inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System                   honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-               equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı́a Técnica
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the             (technical engineering), is not accepted.
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
components in which these functions must be inherent.
                                                                           relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
    concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
    Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the             (2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
    tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs          (3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.
    Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).
                                                                           Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader                            AG against Commission of the European Communities
               Rivas against European Parliament
                                                                                                    (Case T-250/01)
                            (Case T-249/01)
                                                                                                     (2002/C 3/63)
                             (2002/C 3/62)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-              Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
da (Madrid), represented by Diego López Garrido, lawyer.                  represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 3/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
      2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain              —    the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
      documents concerning a proceeding pursuant to                            inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
      Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating                   any certainty the conditions for taking part in the
      to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro                    appointment procedure.
      zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
      application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-              —    the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
      mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001                        according to his curriculum vitae published on the
      on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain                 internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
      competition proceedings;                                                 being considered a suitable candidate.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —    the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
                                                                               rules of the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
                                                                               refused him access to certain document regarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                appointment procedure.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
                                                                          Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
                                                                          Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
 against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                                                 European Union
                        (Case T-254/01)
                                                                                                  (Case T-255/01)
                         (2002/C 3/64)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 3/65)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
                                                                          Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
—     annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the                  Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).
      European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
      decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
      General of the Court;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
      applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.              —    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
                                                                               2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
                                                                               collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
                                                                               imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
                                                                               China in so far as it applies to the applicants;
The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.                                                 —    order the Council to pay the costs.