# C_2012073EN.01002902.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/29

---

Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission

(Case T-35/12)

2012/C 73/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Icelandic Group UK Ltd (Grimsby, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Sloane, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1(2) of Commission Decision C(2011) 8113 FINAL of 15.11.2011 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (rem 04/2010); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(2) of Commission Decision C(2011) 8113 FINAL of 15.11.2011 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (rem 04/2010); and

rem

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and Article 906a of Commission Regulation 2454/93/EEC (1), as the defendant failed to observe applicant’s rights of defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of Article 1(2) of the contested decision, by adopting a decision adversely affecting the rights of the applicant without giving it the right to be heard on the basis for that unfavourable decision, namely the defendant’s assessment that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and Article 906a of Commission Regulation 2454/93/EEC (1), as the defendant failed to observe applicant’s rights of defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of Article 1(2) of the contested decision, by adopting a decision adversely affecting the rights of the applicant without giving it the right to be heard on the basis for that unfavourable decision, namely the defendant’s assessment that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 220(2)(b), Article 236 and/or Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), as:






  — | The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty under Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met in the present circumstances. The assessment of the defendant that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007 is manifestly wrong; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 220(2)(b), Article 236 and/or Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), as:

2

—

The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty under Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met in the present circumstances. The assessment of the defendant that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007 is manifestly wrong;

| — | Further or alternatively, the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty in Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met. The defendant’s assessment that the circumstances of the present case do not disclose a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 was manifestly wrong. |
| --- | --- |

—

Further or alternatively, the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty in Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met. The defendant’s assessment that the circumstances of the present case do not disclose a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 was manifestly wrong.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1)

1

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

2

---