CELEX: C2000/316/60
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-222/00: Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/31
—     The decision is inadequately reasoned and is in breach of                  games of chance, by their nature, since they require the
      the principle of proportionality.                                          presence and direct involvement of the customer, cannot
                                                                                 circulate beyond the casino, in striking contrast to other
                                                                                 games of chance such as lotteries, betting on horses, dogs
                                                                                 and so forth. Accordingly, the activity pursued in the
(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to                Casino can never be described as commercial and made
    Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC            subject to free competition.
    Treaty, OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                           —     Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                 reasons.
                                                                           —     Infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                 the applicant was never mentioned by the Commission
                                                                                 in the documents made public during the procedure.
                                                                                 Since it considered itself excluded from the procedure, it
                                                                                 saw no reason whatsoever to intervene and submit
Action brought on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Municipale                           observations.
di Venezia SpA against Commission of the European
                           Communities
                          (Case T-221/00)
                          (2000/C 316/59)
                                                                           Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr GmbH
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                                   (Case T-222/00)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (2000/C 316/60)
European Communities on 24 August 2000 by Casinò Munici-
pale di Venezia SpA, represented by Tito Ballerino, of the
Milan Bar.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the decision of the Com-                European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Otto Wöhr
      mission of 25 November 1999 so far as it is concerned                GmbH, of Friolzheim (Federal Republic of Germany), rep-
                                                                           resented by Dr Christofer Hebel and Dr Gesine Walz, Rechtsan-
                                                                           wälte, of Messrs Moosmayer, Hess, Hoffmann & Partner,
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Stuttgart (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     annul the defendant’s decision of 26 June 2000 not to
                                                                                 open the main procedure for an examination of State
The decision contested in the present case is the same as in                     aid in favour of Hydraulik Markranstädt GmbH (Case
Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v                              No NN 48/98) and Hydraulik Seehausen GmbH (Case
Commission.                                                                      No NN 49/98);
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     The conditions laid down in the first paragraph of
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 87 of the EC Treaty were not met. The applicant
      claims in that regard that, first, Casinò di Venezia retains
      a lawful monopoly, since its activity is not subject                 By the contested decision, the Commission declined to open
      to competition by virtue of statutory protection, and,               the main procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC for an
      secondly, that the services provided by the applicant                examination of the compatibility with the common market of
      consist only in making available to customers its gaming             State aid granted by the German authorities to Hydraulik
      areas free of charge. The applicants point out that such             Markranstädt and Hydraulik Seehausen.
 ---pagebreak--- 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