Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2003 in Case T-368/00: General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 — Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guidelines for the calculation of fines)
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), concessionaire, export refund, motor vehicle industry

C 7/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

1. Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of
16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement).

2. Annuls Article 6 of Decision 1999/243 in so far as it applies
to mutual disclosure by the applicants of the availability and
content of their individual service contracts.

(Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R. Gar-
cía-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi
and H. Legal,
for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which
it:

J. Plingers, Administrator,

Judges;

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible.

3. Annuls Article 7 of Decision 1999/243 to the extent required

by the annulment of Articles 5 and 6.

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of

the Commission.

4. Annuls Article 8 of Decision 1999/243.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applications.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

6. Orders the applicants and the Commission each to bear their

own costs.

7. Orders the European Council of Transport Users ASBL to bear

its own costs.

(1) OJ C 71 of 27.03.1999 and OJ C 86 of 13.03.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 16 October 2003

in Case T-148/00: The Panhellenic Union of Cotton
Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(State aid — Compensatory levy — Method of financing aid
— Community aid scheme for cotton — Action for annul-
ment — Admissibility — Acts which may be challenged —
Commission’s refusal to continue infringement proceedings
— Principle of independent legal remedies)

(2004/C 7/53)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-148/00, The Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners
and Exporters, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented
by K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akritidis and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou
and D. Triantafyllou), supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents:
I. Chalkias and C. Tsiavou): Application for the partial annul-
ment of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of 20 July 1999
on an aid scheme applied in Greece to cotton by the Greek
Cotton Board (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 27), the Court of First Instance

of 21 October 2003

in Case T-368/00: General Motors Nederland BV and
Opel Nederland BV v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81
EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95
— Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at
restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive
bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and
duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guide-
lines for the calculation of fines)

(2004/C 7/54)

(Language of the case: English)

the European Communities

In Case T-368/00, General Motors Nederland BV, established
in Sliedrecht (Netherlands), Opel Nederland BV, established in
Sliedrecht, represented by D. Vandermeersch, R. Snelders and
S. Allcock, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
v Commission of
(Agents:
W. Mölls and A. Whelan): Application for, as the principal
claim, annulment of the Commission’s decision 2001/146/EC
of 20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 EC (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel) (OJ 2001 L 59,
p. 1) or, in the alternative, cancellation or reduction of the fine
imposed on the applicants by that decision., the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which it has
ruled:

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.