CELEX: 62000TN0231
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-231/00: Action brought on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Comitato "Venezia vuole vivere" against Commission of the European Communities

C 316/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.11.2000
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 considerable
      No. 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;              disparity between the sizes of the undertakings concerned
      and,                                                                    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 to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               which they are entitled
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                —     in determining the fine imposed on the applicants, the
invoked 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 the
                                                                              applicants 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’
                  (Language of the case: English)                            against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (Case T-231/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European 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 Van
Bael & 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
—     order the Commission to bear the costs.                           the Rome and Venice Bars.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 316/35
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
—     annul the whole of the decision                                                               Internal Market
—     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 and
Others (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 for                   of 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 Internal
ives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantages
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
burdening 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
      as there is no threat to competition or trade between               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Member States, and, specifically so far as concerns
      Adriatica, the applicants point out the non-aid nature of
      the reduction of and exemption from social security                 —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      contributions in question, in view of the services provided               Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in
      by it;                                                                    case R 181/1999-3;
—     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
      (c)    the misassessment of its compatibility with the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
             common market in cases other than those listed in
             the operative part.
—     the third paragraph of Article 87 so far as concerns the            Applicant of the Com-          Chef Revival USA Inc.
      failure to assess and provide for special cases in respect          munity trade mark:
      of undertakings other than those under Articles 1, 3 and
      4 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 the
                                                                          Proprietor of an oppos-        Massague Marin
      characterisation of the reduction and exemption in
                                                                          ing 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)
Finally, the applicants claim that the order for recovery of the          sign:                          for the same products of class 25
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