# C_2012165EN.01002902.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/29 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International v Commission

(Case T-147/12)

2012/C 165/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision REM 02/09 of 16 September 2011 (C(2011) 6393 final); |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision REM 02/09 of 16 September 2011 (C(2011) 6393 final) determining that remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case, which concerns imports by the applicant of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus — country of origin, China — in 2004 and 2006.

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

| 1. | Infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code
—
The applicant is doubtful about the Commission’s assessment that there was an error on the part of the German customs authorities in the present case. —
In any event, the applicant does not recognise the (alleged) error. The applicant, who acted in good faith and is experienced, cannot be accused of a lack of due care. In view of the complex legal position and the longstanding practice of the German authorities, the applicant can claim a legitimate expectation. | — | The applicant is doubtful about the Commission’s assessment that there was an error on the part of the German customs authorities in the present case. | — | In any event, the applicant does not recognise the (alleged) error. The applicant, who acted in good faith and is experienced, cannot be accused of a lack of due care. In view of the complex legal position and the longstanding practice of the German authorities, the applicant can claim a legitimate expectation. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant is doubtful about the Commission’s assessment that there was an error on the part of the German customs authorities in the present case. | | | | |
| — | In any event, the applicant does not recognise the (alleged) error. The applicant, who acted in good faith and is experienced, cannot be accused of a lack of due care. In view of the complex legal position and the longstanding practice of the German authorities, the applicant can claim a legitimate expectation. | | | | |

| 2. | Infringement of Article 239 of the Customs Code
—
The Commission made a procedural legal error in that, by means of a simple reference to refusal pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, it summarily also denied remission of import duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code, without any separate assessment. —
Furthermore, the Commission also committed a substantive legal error in failing to recognise that there are ‘special circumstances’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code in the present case, and that the criteria for remission under that provision were satisfied. | — | The Commission made a procedural legal error in that, by means of a simple reference to refusal pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, it summarily also denied remission of import duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code, without any separate assessment. | — | Furthermore, the Commission also committed a substantive legal error in failing to recognise that there are ‘special circumstances’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code in the present case, and that the criteria for remission under that provision were satisfied. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The Commission made a procedural legal error in that, by means of a simple reference to refusal pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, it summarily also denied remission of import duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code, without any separate assessment. | | | | |
| — | Furthermore, the Commission also committed a substantive legal error in failing to recognise that there are ‘special circumstances’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code in the present case, and that the criteria for remission under that provision were satisfied. | | | | |

| 3. | Infringement of general legal principles
The applicant further claims that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the primary-law principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality, the principle of good administration and the principle of equal treatment. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---