# C_2004094EN.01002503.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/25

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Company against the judgment delivered on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/01 between DLD Trading Company and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland

(Case C-80/04 P)

(2004/C 94/55)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/01 between DLD Trading Company and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Company, represented by Dr J. Hintermayr, Dr F. Haunschmidt, Dr G. Minichmayr, Dr P. Burgstaller and G.J. Tusek, Marienstr. 4, A-4020 Linz.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | allow the appeal and






  — | vary the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 in Case T-146/01 (1) so as to order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 726 728,34; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

allow the appeal and

—

vary the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 in Case T-146/01 (1) so as to order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 726 728,34; or

1

| — | vary the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 so as to hold that the claim for compensation is well founded and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so that it may determine the amount of compensation to be paid; or |
| --- | --- |

—

vary the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 so as to hold that the claim for compensation is well founded and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so that it may determine the amount of compensation to be paid; or

| — | annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance as regards the following points:

| — | Erroneous assessment of the causal link between the retroactivity of Regulation No 2744/98 and the damage suffered by the appellant. The damage alleged in the present proceedings was not suffered from 1 January 1998 but, rather, arose from the entry into force of Regulation No 2744/98 on 14 December 1998 with effect from 1 January 1998. The damage was caused not by the allowance fixed by the Republic of Austria at ECU 75 but by the conduct of the Council of the EU. The event giving rise to the damage was the entry into force of Regulation No 2744/98 on 14 December 1998. There is therefore a direct causal link between the adoption of Regulation No 2744/98 by the Council of the EU on 14 December 1998 and the loss of the appellant's claim for an allowance against the Republic of Austria. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous assessment of the causal link between the retroactivity of Regulation No 2744/98 and the damage suffered by the appellant. The damage alleged in the present proceedings was not suffered from 1 January 1998 but, rather, arose from the entry into force of Regulation No 2744/98 on 14 December 1998 with effect from 1 January 1998. The damage was caused not by the allowance fixed by the Republic of Austria at ECU 75 but by the conduct of the Council of the EU. The event giving rise to the damage was the entry into force of Regulation No 2744/98 on 14 December 1998. There is therefore a direct causal link between the adoption of Regulation No 2744/98 by the Council of the EU on 14 December 1998 and the loss of the appellant's claim for an allowance against the Republic of Austria.

| — | Failure to take account of the fact that the limitations placed on the Community system of reliefs from customs duties (Regulation No 918/83, as amended) by Regulations No 3316/94 and No 2744/98 are intended to protect the economy in regions bordering on Austria (‘border undertakings’). However, despite that intended purpose, the geographical scope of the reduction in the customs allowance introduced by the abovementioned regulations is unlimited. The limitations on the customs allowance under Regulations No 3316/94 and 2744/98 are therefore unnecessary, excessive and disproportionate and thus unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to take account of the fact that the limitations placed on the Community system of reliefs from customs duties (Regulation No 918/83, as amended) by Regulations No 3316/94 and No 2744/98 are intended to protect the economy in regions bordering on Austria (‘border undertakings’). However, despite that intended purpose, the geographical scope of the reduction in the customs allowance introduced by the abovementioned regulations is unlimited. The limitations on the customs allowance under Regulations No 3316/94 and 2744/98 are therefore unnecessary, excessive and disproportionate and thus unlawful.

---

(1)  Not yet published in the European Court Reports.

1

---