# C_2005093EN.01003701.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/37

---

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde Mondia France against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-55/05)

(2005/C 93/69)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde Mondia France, having its registered office in Rouen (France), represented by François Citron, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | regard the letter of 7 October 2004 sent by the European Commission to the Directorate General of Customs in file REM 2201 as constitutive of a decision of the European Commission, which adversely affects Rijn Schelde Mondia France and annul it accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

regard the letter of 7 October 2004 sent by the European Commission to the Directorate General of Customs in file REM 2201 as constitutive of a decision of the European Commission, which adversely affects Rijn Schelde Mondia France and annul it accordingly;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to the decision allegedly contained in a letter of the Commission dated 7 October 2004 which was sent to the French Directorate General of Customs.

In this respect, it is to be borne in mind that the applicant company requested the French customs authorities by letter of 31 October 2000 to agree to remit the customs duties which had been notified to it by the Directorate General of Customs of Rouen and Le Havre, in respect of a total amount of EUR 962 058,64. Although the French authorities considered themselves competent to deal with the application for remission of duties, they nevertheless referred the file to the Commission so that the Commission could rule on ‘whether the negligence found was manifest in nature or not’.

By the contested decision the Commission returned the file to the French customs authorities ‘to be dealt with by your department’. Nonetheless, the Commission did point out to the French authorities that it considered that the applicant was guilty of manifest negligence and recommended further that the applicant be refused the benefit of remission of duties.

In support of its claims, the applicant asserts that:

| — | the Commission acted ultra vires in the present case since although it considered itself not to have the power to deal with the application for remission of duties, it nevertheless took a view as to whether the negligence alleged was manifest in nature or not; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission acted ultra vires in the present case since although it considered itself not to have the power to deal with the application for remission of duties, it nevertheless took a view as to whether the negligence alleged was manifest in nature or not;

| — | the Commission did not make its decision within the nine-month time-limit laid down in the second paragraph of Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission did not make its decision within the nine-month time-limit laid down in the second paragraph of Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code;

| — | the Commission failed to observe the duty to give reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission failed to observe the duty to give reasons;

| — | the Commission misused its powers in the present case in so far as it gave its decision as regards its lack of power three years after the file had been sent to it by the French authorities, although it had not known of the argument relating to lack of power initially raised by the applicant itself before the French customs authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission misused its powers in the present case in so far as it gave its decision as regards its lack of power three years after the file had been sent to it by the French authorities, although it had not known of the argument relating to lack of power initially raised by the applicant itself before the French customs authorities.

Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment in this case of the constituent elements of manifest negligence.

---