You are on page 1of 1

C 94/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.3.

98

The applicant claims that the Court should: The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
Commission.
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
application,

Ð order the Council and/or Commission to pay the


applicant's costs. Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S.
Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: the European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities
(Case T-307/97)
The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect (98/C 94/68)
to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
producer, has not been compensated for the absence of (Language of the case: English)
quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.

An action against the Council of the European Union and


The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the the Commission of the European Communities was
applicant are the same as those raised in Case T-304/97 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Hilsdon v. Council and Commission. Communities on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands
and E. H. S. Rowlands, represented by Rory Hutchings,
Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,
Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.

The applicant claims that the Court should:


Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
of the European Union and the Commission of the in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
European Communities
(Case T-306/97) Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
(98/C 94/67) applicant's costs.

(Language of the case: English) Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of


An action against the Council of the European Union and
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
the Commission of the European Communities was
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
Communities on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
introduction of SLOM quota.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis, represented by Rory
Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New
Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ. The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
Commission.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages


in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,

Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
applicant's costs. and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Comunities
(Case T-308/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(98/C 94/69)

The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of


(Language of the case: English)
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the An action against the Council of the European Union and
introduction of SLOM quota. the Commission of the European Communities was