CELEX: C2002/118/47
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-83/02: Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

C 118/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.5.2002
The applicant further claims that there was a violation of               Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of                                the European Central Bank
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It submits that
there is no effective remedy before a court with full jurisdiction                                (Case T-83/02)
against decisions of the Commission concerning the control
of concentrations. The Commission must therefore itself                                          (2002/C 118/47)
comply fully with the principle of impartiality. To that end,
the investigative and decision-making functions must, in the                               (Language of the case: German)
applicant’s view, be entrusted to different persons or bodies,
which was not the case.
                                                                         An action against the European Central Bank was brought
The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the general         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
principle of Community law that any person whose rights have             on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
been infringed is entitled to an effective remedy. According to          (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.
the applicant, the contested decision interferes with the action
brought by the applicant against the decision declaring the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
operation incompatible with the common market. Any annul-
ment which might follow from that first application would be             —     annul the formal warning given by letter of 28.2.2002;
deprived of a great part of its effect as a result of the decision
at issue in the present application. The contested decision thus         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
also constitutes an infringement of the principle of good
administration, given that it obliged the applicant to bring a
fresh application in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
first application.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, argues in support
                                                                         of his claim that the formal warning at issue is null and void,
The applicant then claims that the Commission exceeded its
                                                                         inasmuch as it is based on incorrect factual allegations, and
territorial jurisdiction by laying down certain conditions               that the complaints on which that warning is based are totally
for the separation. The applicant further submits that the
                                                                         unjustified. The applicant’s conduct does not reflect any
Commission did not comply with Article 8(4) of Regulation                continuing pattern of poor performance, and the applicant has
No 4064/89. That article, according to the applicant, requires           adequately performed his contractual duties.
the Commission to restore effective competition, not to restore
competitors in the market in question, as was done in the
contested decision. In that decision, finally, the Commission            Furthermore, the defendant is precluded by the obligation of
also failed to comply with the general principle of pro-                 an employer to have regard for the welfare and interests of his
portionality and made manifest errors of assessment.                     employees from taking into account certain facts by way of
                                                                         justification for the giving of the warning at issue. An
                                                                         employer is under an obligation forthwith to rebuke the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on           person concerned in respect of any matters on which he
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of      proposes to rely by way of justification for the adoption of
    30.12.1989, p. 1, republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990, p. 13).      measures adversely affecting the employee. In addition, the
                                                                         defendant’s conduct infringes the European rules on data
                                                                         protection.