Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Vereins- und Westbank AG against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-54/02)

    Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Vereins- und Westbank AG, of Hamburg, represented by Josef Lothar Schulte, Michael Ewen and Alexandra Neus, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)annul the contested decision C(2001) 3693 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 December 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 (ex 37.391) ( Bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro zone ( Germany, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant;

(2)alternatively, cancel or, in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

(3)order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is contesting the defendant's decision C(2001) 3693 of 11 December 2001, adopted in a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty concerning Case COMP/E-1/37.919 (ex 37.391) ( Bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro zone ( Germany.

The contested decision of the defendant of 11 December 2001, which was notified in Hamburg, Germany, on 19 December 2001, is unlawful.

It constitutes an infringement of the EC Treaty and of the rules of law relating to its application (second paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty), and should therefore be annulled. The defendant bases its decision on an incorrect view of the facts. The applicant participated only by chance in the decisive foreign exchange dealers' meeting which took place on 15 October 1997.

That meeting did not fulfil the criteria for an agreement in restraint of competition within the meaning of Article 81 of the EC Treaty.

The defendant's contrary findings were based on an insufficient and prejudiced ascertainment of the facts, and on a grossly erroneous assessment of the evidence.

The administrative procedure did not correspond to the requirements of Community law, inasmuch as the applicant's rights of defence, its right to a fair hearing and its right to inspect the file were consistently infringed.

Moreover, the decision was reached in a manner which infringed essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty; in particular, the defendant failed to give a sufficient statement of reasons for the decision.

The defendant misused its powers within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty. In carrying out its procedure, it was not seeking to put an end to infringements of the competition rules but to lower the charges for the conversion of foreign currencies.

The amount of the fine was also such as to render it unlawful. The defendant did not correctly apply the relevant principles for the calculation of fines.

____________