Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2003 in Case T-47/01: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Refusal — Authorship rule — Misuse of powers)
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fraud, import, import licence, tropical fruit

10.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/31

1.

2.

3.

4.

The contested decision of the Commission 2001/146/EC of
20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81
of the EC Treaty (COMP/36.653 — Opel) is annulled in so
far as it establishes the existence of a restrictive supply measure
contrary to Article 81(1) EC.

2. Dismisses the rest of the action as unfounded.

3. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those of

the Commission.

The amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 3
of the contested decision is reduced to EUR 35 475 000.

(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.

The application is dismissed as to the remainder.

The applicants are ordered to bear four fifths of their own costs
and four fifths of the Commission’s costs; the Commission is
ordered to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the
applicants’ costs.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 October 2003

in Case T-255/01: Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
Fixtures Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Yankon Group Co. Ltd v
Council of the European Union (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 16 October 2003

(Anti-dumping — Determination of normal value — Mar-
ket-economy treatment — Analogue country — Article 2(7)
of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

in Case T-47/01: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Refusal — Authorship rule
— Misuse of powers)

(2004/C 7/56)

(Language of the case: English)

(2004/C 7/55)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-47/01, Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl, established in Padua
(Italy), represented by W. Viscardini, M. Paolin and S. Donà,
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
P. Stancanelli, P. Aalto and P. Wölker): Application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in the
letters of 31 July 2000 from the Directorate-General for
Agriculture and 5 December 2000 from the Secretary-General
of the Commission, by which access to the documents sought
by the applicant in connection with the arrangements for
importing bananas was partly refused, the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 16 October 2003, in which it:

In Case T-255/01, Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
Fixtures Co. Ltd, established at Changzhou (China), Zhejiang
Yankon Group Co. Ltd, formerly Zheijang Sunlight Group Co.
Ltd, established at Shangyu (China), represented by P. Bentley
QC, and F. Ragolle, lawyer, v Council of the European Union
(Agents: S. Marquardt, and G. M. Berrisch), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
schitz, T. Scharf and S. Meany): Application for annulment of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated
electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the
People’s Republic of China (OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8), the Court
of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
J.D. Cooke,
J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 October 2003, in which it:

J. Pirrung and H. Legal,

Judges;

1. Dismisses

the decision
the application for annulment of
contained in the letter from DG Agriculture of 31 July 2000
as inadmissible.

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the

costs incurred by the Council.

1. Dismisses the action.