CELEX: C2002/109/114
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-41/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito Centrale spa against the Commission of the European Communities

4.5.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/59
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca di
                                                                           Roma spa, represented by Franco Gallo and Gabriele Escalar,
(1) annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December                    lawyers.
      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
      requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
      Article 253 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with                     —     primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
      Articles 87 and 88 and with Council Regulation                             European Communities which is contested in these
      No 659/1999;                                                               proceedings;
                                                                           —     alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
(2) alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
                                                                                 the European Communities which is contested in these
      part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
                                                                                 proceedings in so far as it requires Italy to ‘adopt all
      the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
                                                                                 necessary measures to recover the aid granted from the
      Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
                                                                                 recipients thereof’;
      or (c) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings
(3) in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event                 and all other consequential expenses.
      that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
      23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
      17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
      constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible               Pleas in law and main arguments
      with the common market, exempt the private benefici-
      aries of such aid from having to reimburse the same and,
      in any event, rule that the contested decision of the                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
      Commission cannot have any retroactive effect, thus                  put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
      annulling certain parts of the contested decision on the
      grounds that the Commission failed to exercise its
      investigatory power in a reasonable way and/or failed
      to give sufficient reasons, alternatively infringed the
      principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
      and/or proportionality and/or legal certainty within the
      meaning of Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999.
                                                                           Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito
                                                                           Centrale spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                      Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                     (Case T-41/02)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                                         (2002/C 109/114)
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca di Roma                        Centrale spa, represented by Franco Gallo and Gabriele Escalar,
spa against the Commission of the European Communities                     lawyers.
                          (Case T-40/02)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2002/C 109/113)                                   —     primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
                                                                                 European Communities which is contested in these
                                                                                 proceedings;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           —     alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                                 the European Communities which is contested in these
                                                                                 proceedings in so far as it requires Italy to ‘adopt all
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        necessary measures to recover the aid granted from the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       recipients thereof’;
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/60               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings                  interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
      and all other consequential expenses.                                      prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
                                                                                 the interest prescribed.
                                                                           —     In any event:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                 make all further consequential orders or such further
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                        orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei                      put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-42/02)
                        (2002/C 109/115)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
                                                                           AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                           ties
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                            (Case T-44/02)
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,                                        (2002/C 109/116)
lawyers.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Primarily:
—     (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            pean Communities of 11 December 2001;                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
                                                                           Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
      (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                           M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
—     Alternatively:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      (1) annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
            as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
            incompatible with the common market;                           —     annul the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
                                                                                 COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for currency
      (2) annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering                    exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
            the recovery of the aid granted together with interest               AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
            from the date on which the aid became available;                     alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
                                                                                 AG by Article 3 of that decision;
—     In the further alternative:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
      annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,                AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
      in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,                      of the Court of First Instance.