CELEX: C2000/316/62
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-224/00: Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

C 316/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
The applicant states that the decision is of direct and individual        This decision has imposed a fine to the applicants, after having
concern to it in its capacity as a competitor of the recipient            considered they have infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty
undertakings in the European market for the production and                and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in
assembly of parking systems for motor vehicles. It claims that            agreements on prices, sales volumes and the exchange of
the decision in issue infringes its entitlement to a fair hearing,        individual information on sales volumes of synthetic lysing.
which can be safeguarded only by the opening of the main
examination procedure. The Commission unlawfully omitted
to investigate, by way of the main examination procedure, the             The applicants does not contest the factual background of the
                                                                          case. Instead, in support of its conclusions, they submit the
grounds on which a distortion of competition is alleged by
                                                                          following pleas on law:
the applicant in its complaint. The Commission based its
assessment on incorrect information contained in an expert’s
report. Lastly, it incorrectly defined the market concerned and           —     The Commission’s imposition of the fine in question, that
incorrectly assessed the number of competitors.                                 is calculated on the basis of a new ‘Fines Guidelines’ (1),
                                                                                infringes the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate
                                                                                expectations.
                                                                          —     Specifically, when imposing the fine, the Commission
                                                                                applied the Fines Guidelines retroactively, in opposition
                                                                                to statements made and correspondence provided by the
                                                                                Commission staff as part of the discussions leading to
                                                                                Kyowa’s cooperations pursuant to the Commission
Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko                                 Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH                                   cartel case (2).
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     In addition and in the alternative, the Commission has
                                                                                violated the principle of proportionality by imposing a
                         (Case T-223/00)                                        fine that takes into account Kyowa’s worldwide activities,
                                                                                and not the fact that only a small percentage of its
                         (2000/C 316/61)                                        worldwide turnover was generated in what is to be
                                                                                considered as the relevant market in the present case, i.e.
                                                                                the EEA.
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     In the base fine calculation the Commission has unduly
                                                                                refused to take into account the substantial fines already
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       imposed on the Applicants by the US authorities.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH,                            (1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
                                                                              Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 Article 65(5) of the ECSC
represented by Dr Cornelis Canenbley and Dr Kay Diedrich of                   Treaty (OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3).
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels.                                 (2) OJ C 207, of 18.7.1996, p. 4.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision No. C (2000) 1565 final of
      7 June 2000 in relation to the fine imposed or reduce the
      fine imposed upon the applicant as per the Court’s
      discretion;
                                                                          Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels
—     order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-            Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredi-
      ings.                                                               ents Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-224/00)
The applicants in the present case, a Company established                                           (2000/C 316/62)
under Japanese Law, and its European subsidiary, are involved,
inter alia, in animal health products. In relation to amino acids,
Kyowa Hakko currently has production facilities in Japan,                                     (Language of the case: English)
Hungary, Mexico and the USA. They seek the annulment of
Article 2 of the Commission decision dated 7 June 2000 —
C(2000) 1565 final, concerning a procedure under Article 81               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the EC Treaty (Case Comp/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/33
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels                 Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics
Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients                    Corporation against the Council of the European Union
Limited, represented by Lynda Martin Alegi and Edward
William Batchelor of Baker and McKenzie, London.                                                 (Case T-226/00)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 316/63)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 7 June                                (Language of the case: English)
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of
       the EEC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case          An action against the Council of the European Union was
       COMP/36.545/F3-Amino Acids) insofar as it pertains to             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
       ADM;                                                              Communities on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics Corpor-
                                                                         ation, represented by Philippe De Baere, of Van Bael & Bellis,
                                                                         Brussels.
—      in the alternative, the modification of Article 2 of the
       decision as it pertains to ADM, so as to annul or
       substantially reduce the fine imposed on ADM therein;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
—      order the Commission to pay all the costs of the                        No 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;
       proceedings; and                                                        and
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
—      order the Commission to reimburse ADM for any
       expenses incurred in providing security for payment of
       the fine.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The contested measure in the present case is Council Regu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          lation (EC) No 978/2000 imposing a definitive countervailing
                                                                         duty on imports of polyester originating in Australia, Indonesia
                                                                         and Taiwan and collecting definitively the provisional duty
                                                                         imposed (1).
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
in cases T-220/00 et T-223/00 Cheil Jedang Corporation/Com-
mission and T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo and Kyowa Hakko                   The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyester,
Europe/Commission.                                                       not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning,
                                                                         which is currently classified under CN code 5503 20 00.
It is submitted, in particular, that the Commission:                     The applicant, a company incorporated in Taiwan producing
                                                                         a wide range of artificial fibres, plastics and petrochemical
                                                                         intermediates, puts forward the following submissions:
—      Has incorrectly characterised the infringement as a very
       serious infringement likely to jeopardise the proper              —     The Council unlawfully countervailed the import duty
       functioning of the single market.                                       exemption for raw materials since this scheme could
                                                                               not lawfully have been included in the scope of the
                                                                               investigation.
—      Failed to take into account the lack of actual impact of
       the Cartel in assessing the fine.                                 —     The Council’s conclusion that the benefits obtained under
                                                                               the tax credit for investment in important undertakings,
—      Improperly assesses that the applicants implemented the                 the import-duty exemption for machinery and anti-
       agreements.                                                             pollution equipment, the import-duty exemptions for raw
                                                                               materials and the tax credit for purchase of automation
                                                                               equipment are countervalable is based on an erroneus
—      Improperly assesses the applicants to be sector leaders                 application of Article 3(2) of the basic anti-subsidy regu-
       and increased the fine excessively in respect of leadership.            lation and is made in the absence of positive evidence
                                                                               and thereby infringes Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 3(5) of that
                                                                               regulation.
—      Has infringed essential procedural requirements.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 113 of 12.5.2000, p. 1.