C 316/34

4.11.2000

Official Journal of the European Communities

Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

The factual and legal framework is similar to that in cases T-220/00, T-223/00 and T-224/00.

(Case T-227/00)

(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 reduced. The specific claims of the applicants are the following:

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Ltd., represented by Philippe De Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels.

—the application of the new fining rules violates fundamental principles of legal certainty

—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:

—annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;

—order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

—the Commission did not correctly assess the considerable disparity between the sizes of the undertakings concerned and, as a result, discriminated against the applicants

—the Commission has incorrectly applied the Leniency Notice () with regard to the applicants and thereby denied the applicants the substantial reduction in the fine to which they are entitled

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those invoked in case T-226/00, Nan Ya Plastics/Council.

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 Corporation 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’ against Commission of the European Communities

(Language of the case: English)

(Case T-231/00)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Daesang Corporation and Sewon Europe GmbH, represented by Jean-François Bellis, Andrzej Kmiecik and Stephanie Reinart of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels.

(2000/C 316/66)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision C (2000) 1565 final of 7 June 2000; and

—order the Commission to bear the costs.

4.11.2000

C 316/35

Official Journal of the European Communities

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 Internal Market

—annul the whole of the decision

—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 ( ). The applicants are an undertaking which has been entrusted with the public service tasks relating to routes considered essential for maintaining the links necessary for 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 initiatives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantages burdening business in Venice.

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — application drafted in English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival USA Inc, represented by Neil Jenkins of Bird & Bird, London.

(2000/C 316/66)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in case R 181/1999-3;

—order the Office to reject Opposition No. B 4392; and

—order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.

( ) Not yet published.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

4.11.2000

C 316/35

Official Journal of the European Communities

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 Internal Market

—annul the whole of the decision

—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 ( ). The applicants are an undertaking which has been entrusted with the public service tasks relating to routes considered essential for maintaining the links necessary for 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 initiatives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantages burdening business in Venice.

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — application drafted in English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival USA Inc, represented by Neil Jenkins of Bird & Bird, London.

(2000/C 316/66)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in case R 181/1999-3;

—order the Office to reject Opposition No. B 4392; and

—order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.

( ) Not yet published.

Decision of the Opposition Division: