CELEX: C2003/213/74
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-165/03: Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against the Commission of the European Communities

6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                (5 ) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                                measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
                                                                                to combatting terrorism (OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 70).
                                                                           (6 ) Regulation of the European Parliement and the Council of 30 May
—      annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
                                                                                2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
       of 27th February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by                    and Commisson documents (OJ L 145, of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
       the council on the 27th February 2003 to the confirma-
       tory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by fax on the
       3rd February 2002 under Article 7(2) of the Regulation
       (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the applicant’s counsel
       on 28 February 2003;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against
                                                                                   the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                      (Case T-165/03)
                                                                                                     (2003/C 213/74)
The applicant in the present case is the same as in cases T-47/
3 Sison/Council and Commission (1) and T-110/03 Sison/                                         (Language of the Case: German)
Council (2), pursues the annulment of the defendant’s decision
not to get him access to all the documents which were the
basis of the Council Decision 2002/974/CE (3), repealing the
previous Decision 2002/848/EC ( 4), by which the applicant
itself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the list            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
pertinent to Article 2(3), of Regulation 2580/2001 (5).                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier,
                                                                           resident in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                           W. Schmolke, lawyer.
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      The infringement of the right of access to documents, as
       forseen in Articles 1(2) EU, 6(1) EU, 255 EC and 4(1)(a),
       4(6) and 9(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (6).                          —      annul and set aside the decision of the selection board of
                                                                                  30 July 2002 not to include him on the list of successful
                                                                                  candidates in Competition COM/A/601 for the field of
—      The violation of the principle of sound adminstration, as                  external relations;
       well as the duty to state reasons.
                                                                           —      order the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 in compen-
                                                                                  sation for the non-material damage caused to the him;
—      The violation of the general principle of Community Law
       enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and especially of the right to
       be informed promptly, in an understandable language                 —      order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to
       and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.                  Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure if appropriate.
( 1) OJ C 101, of 26.4.2003, p. 41.
( 2) Not published in the OJ yet.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 3) Council Decision of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to          Competition COM/A/601 (1) was held in order to recruit
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ
     L 337, of 13.12.2002, p. 85).
                                                                           administrators in the fields of external relations and adminis-
( 4) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
                                                                           tration of aid to non-member countries. The applicant, an
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures      Austrian national, submitted an application for the field of
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to          foreign relations. He was successful in the written procedure
     combatting terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ           and was admitted to the oral examination. By the contested
     L 295, of 30.10.2002, p. 12).                                         decision he was, however, informed that he could not be
 ---pagebreak--- 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.