# C_2015073EN.01004301.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/43

---

Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-841/14)

(2015/C 073/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the demand made by the Commission’s services in their letter of 21 October 2014 for payment of interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the demand made by the Commission’s services in their letter of 21 October 2014 for payment of interest;

| — | in the alternative, determine that the increase provided for in the second and third sentences of Article 11 should not be applied; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, determine that the increase provided for in the second and third sentences of Article 11 should not be applied;

| — | whether or not the above is accepted, in the further alternative to the first head of claim, hold 20 January 2004 to be the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, that is to say, the next working day of the second month following the possible establishment of the debt, 27 November 2003, corresponding to all of the transits covered by the present proceedings, or, failing which, at least in respect of the interest on the customs debt corresponding to the last three transits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

whether or not the above is accepted, in the further alternative to the first head of claim, hold 20 January 2004 to be the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, that is to say, the next working day of the second month following the possible establishment of the debt, 27 November 2003, corresponding to all of the transits covered by the present proceedings, or, failing which, at least in respect of the interest on the customs debt corresponding to the last three transits; and

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision contained in the Commission’s letter Ares (2014) 3486706 (BUDG/B/02/MTC/IB) of 21 October 2014, by which it applied Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

The origins of the present action are to be found in an investigation by the Netherlands authorities relating to 26 transits dispatched from its customs between April and November 1994 and for which the declared exit from the Community customs territory was through the Spanish customs at Algeciras. Those authorities considered that the goods concerned had eluded customs control by not having exited the territory of the European Union. Subsequently, the Netherlands authorities drew up a new report in relation to 8 transit declarations, casting doubt on the authenticity of the stamps and signatures of the documents that had been furnished as evidence of their completion.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, in conjunction with Article 9(1), the second paragraph of Article 10(1), Article 6(3) and Article 2, for having been applied by the Commission to a factual situation not envisaged therein.






  — | It is claimed, in this connection, that the case does not concern a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(a) but rather a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(b). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, in conjunction with Article 9(1), the second paragraph of Article 10(1), Article 6(3) and Article 2, for having been applied by the Commission to a factual situation not envisaged therein.

—

It is claimed, in this connection, that the case does not concern a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(a) but rather a customs debt such as contemplated in Article 6(3)(b).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty in the application of the second and third sentences of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.






  — | It is claimed, in this connection, that those sentences contemplate an increase of the interest for late payment the purpose of which is not to compensate the damage caused by late payment, and that they possess a coercive force which precludes their being applied in the absence of knowledge on the part of the Member State of the very existence of the obligation complied with belatedly. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty in the application of the second and third sentences of Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.

—

It is claimed, in this connection, that those sentences contemplate an increase of the interest for late payment the purpose of which is not to compensate the damage caused by late payment, and that they possess a coercive force which precludes their being applied in the absence of knowledge on the part of the Member State of the very existence of the obligation complied with belatedly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1150/2000 as regards the setting of the date on which the customs debt fell to be established and therefore the inappropriate setting of the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, since the matters were the subject of judicial proceedings, which means that, in any event, it would have been possible to establish it only following the legal ruling. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1150/2000 as regards the setting of the date on which the customs debt fell to be established and therefore the inappropriate setting of the start date for the accrual of interest for late payment, since the matters were the subject of judicial proceedings, which means that, in any event, it would have been possible to establish it only following the legal ruling.

---