C 316/34 EN 4.11.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Pleas in law and main arguments
Ltd. against the Council of the European Union
The factual and legal framework is similar to that in cases
(Case T-227/00) T-220/00, T-223/00 and T-224/00.
(2000/C 316/64)The applicants’ sole submission is that the amount of the fine
imposed on them by the decision violates several rules and
principles of Community law and should be substantially(Language of the case: English)reduced. The specific claims of the applicants are the following:
An action against the Council of the European Union was — the application of the new fining rules violates fundamen-
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European tal principles of legal certainty
Communities on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Ltd.,
represented by Philippe De Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels.— the failure to take into account the EEA lysine turnover
of the applicants violates the principle of proportionality
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— in determining the starting point for the fine, the— annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)Commission did not correctly assess the considerableNo. 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;disparity between the sizes of the undertakings concernedand,and, as a result, discriminated against the applicants
— order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.— the Commission has incorrectly applied the Leniency
Notice (1) with regard to the applicants and thereby denied
the applicants the substantial reduction in the fine toPleas in law and main argumentswhich they are entitled
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those— in determining the fine imposed on the applicants, theinvoked in case T-226/00, Nan Ya Plastics/Council.Commission has failed to take into account, as an
attenuating circumstance, the limited extent to which theapplicants implemented the offending agreements.
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
in cartel cases, OJ C 207, of 18 July 1996, p. 4.
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Daesang Corpor-
ation and Sewon Europe GmbH against the Commission
of the European Communities
(Case T-230/00)
(2000/C 316/65)
Action brought on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di
Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’
against Commission of the European Communities(Language of the case: English)
(Case T-231/00) An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 30 August 2000 by Daesang(2000/C 316/66)Corporation and Sewon Europe GmbH, represented by Jean-
François Bellis, Andrzej Kmiecik and Stephanie Reinart of VanBael & Bellis, Brussels.
(Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
by Commission Decision C (2000) 1565 final of 7 June European Communities on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di
2000; and Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’,
represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
the Rome and Venice Bars. — order the Commission to bear the costs.
4.11.2000 EN C 316/35 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should: Action brought on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
USA Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market — annul the whole of the decision
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Case T-232/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
(2000/C 316/67)
The decision being contested in the present case is the same as
that at issue in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro andOthers (
1). The applicants are an undertaking which has been
entrusted with the public service tasks relating to routes(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)considered essential for maintaining the links necessary forof the Rules of Procedure — application drafted in English)the transportation of persons and goods, and a Committee
(‘comitato’) created under Article 93(2) whose object is to
coordinate any action necessary to oppose Commission initiat-An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internalives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantagesMarket was brought before the Court of First Instance of theburdening business in Venice.European Communities on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
USA Inc, represented by Neil Jenkins of Bird & Bird, London.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the Other parties before the Board of Appeal: Massague Marin.
following have been infringed or misapplied:
— the first paragraph of Article 87 of the Treaty inasmuch
The applicant claims that the Court should: as there is no threat to competition or trade between
Member States, and, specifically so far as concerns
Adriatica, the applicants point out the non-aid nature of
— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the the reduction of and exemption from social security
Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in contributions in question, in view of the services provided
case R 181/1999-3; by it;
— the second and third paragraph of Article 87 so far as
concerns: — order the Office to reject Opposition No. B 4392; and
(a) the misclassification of the reduction and exemption
in question as regional aid; — order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
(b) the erroneous application of the principles relating
to employment aid; and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support (c) the misassessment of its compatibility with the
common market in cases other than those listed in
the operative part.
Applicant of the Com- Chef Revival USA Inc.— the third paragraph of Article 87 so far as concerns themunity trade mark:failure to assess and provide for special cases in respect
of undertakings other than those under Articles 1, 3 and4 of the operative part, in relation to which the reduction Trade mark concerned: Figurative mark (Chef) — Appli-
and exemption in question could be categorised as lawful cation No. 77974 for certain
and compatible with the common market. goods in classes 8, 21 and 25
— Article 253 of the Treaty in so far as concerns theProprietor of an oppos- Massague Marincharacterisation of the reduction and exemption ining trade mark or sign:question as State aid and their being deemed incompatible
with the common market.
Opposing trade mark or National figurative mark (Cheff)
sign: for the same products of class 25Finally, the applicants claim that the order for recovery of the
aid is unlawful.
Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:
(1) Not yet published.
Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division