Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and Hannelore Danzer against the Council of the European Union

    (Case T-47/02)

    (Language of the case: German)

    

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and Hannelore Danzer, Linz (Austrian Republic), represented by J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and P. Burgstaller.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(order the defendant to pay EUR 18 527.21 to the applicants' legal representatives within 14 days and declare Article 2(1)(f) of Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 ¹ and Article 47 of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 ² to be contrary to European Community law;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are managing directors of various Austrian companies. They claim that the obligation to disclose the annual accounts of companies limited by shares and equivalent partnerships is incompatible with primary Community law, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. On those grounds the applicants have to date refused to disclose the annual accounts in the requisite form for the companies for which they are responsible. By the time this action was brought fines of EUR 18 527.21 had been imposed on the applicants.

The applicants submit that the disclosure required by the directives in question entails the disclosure of confidential business information which is contrary to EC competition law and the general principle of the protection of business and trade secrets. The publication of important and confidential business data is also disproportionate and inadmissible in the light of Article 287 EC.

The applicants argue, further, that Article 2(1)(f) of Directive 68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC have no basis in Article 44(2)(g) EC nor are they the type of provision which is properly covered by a "directive" within the meaning of Article 249 EC. The provisions do not harmonise existing law but "create" new law. Moreover, they are contrary to the principle of proportionality and breach the Austrian data protection law, the fundamental right to property, the fundamental right to freedom of economic activity and the protection of private tax matters.

Finally, the applicants submit that the objectives of the Council in the directives cited are not covered by Community law and are therefore a direct cause of the refusal to disclose the accounts, and that the causal link between the objectives of the directive and the damage caused and anticipated is thus clear.

____________

¹ - First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 41).

² - Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).