# C_2012025EN.01005501.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/55

---

Action brought on 4 November 2011 — JAS v Commission

(Case T-573/11)

(2012/C 25/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (France) (represented by: T. Gallois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 in which the Commission:






  — | decided that there was no special situation; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 in which the Commission:

—

decided that there was no special situation; and

| — | refused the application for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 1 001 778,20 submitted by JAS JET AIR SERVICE on 24 January 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

refused the application for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 1 001 778,20 submitted by JAS JET AIR SERVICE on 24 January 2008;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based, in so far as the Commission gave hypothetical reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based, in so far as the Commission gave hypothetical reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence in that the Commission did not require the national administration to produce originals or copies of the customs declarations to which the application for remission related, although those documents would prove that a physical check had taken place. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence in that the Commission did not require the national administration to produce originals or copies of the customs declarations to which the application for remission related, although those documents would prove that a physical check had taken place.

| 3. | Third plea in law: irregular examination of the case in that the burden of proof was reversed, the Commission having concluded, on the basis of the national authorities’ assertion that the customs declarations in question had disappeared, that there was no proof that the customs administration had physically checked the goods. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot make good that failure on the part of the national authorities, to the detriment of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: irregular examination of the case in that the burden of proof was reversed, the Commission having concluded, on the basis of the national authorities’ assertion that the customs declarations in question had disappeared, that there was no proof that the customs administration had physically checked the goods. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot make good that failure on the part of the national authorities, to the detriment of the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (1) in so far as the Commission limited the scope of the definition of ‘special situation’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (1) in so far as the Commission limited the scope of the definition of ‘special situation’.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in so far as the Commission found that there was no ‘special situation’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was faced with the same situation as another forwarding agent, a Dutch company, whose situation had been deemed by the Commission to constitute a ‘special situation’. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in so far as the Commission found that there was no ‘special situation’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was faced with the same situation as another forwarding agent, a Dutch company, whose situation had been deemed by the Commission to constitute a ‘special situation’.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

---