Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2007:32
Date: 2007-02-06
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: General;Own resources of the Communities;Origin of goods;The various agreements concluded by the Community;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Commission
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Application for measures of inquiry - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) 2. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence (Art. 255 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) 3. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Customs union – Origin of goods (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement) 4. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230 EC) 5. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Obligations of the Commission (Art. 211 EC; EEC-Turkey Association Agreement) 6. Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) 1. Observance of the right to be heard must be guaranteed in procedures for the remission of import duties, in particular in view of the power of assessment enjoyed by the Commission when it adopts a decision pursuant to the general equitable provision contained in Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code. (see para. 87) 2. As regards the administrative procedure for remission of import duties, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence implies only that the party concerned be placed in a position in which it may effectively make its views known as regards the evidence, including the documents used against it by the Commission as a basis for the decision. That principle therefore does not require the Commission, acting on its own initiative, to grant access to all the documents which may have some connection with the case at issue when an application for remission is referred to it. If the party concerned considers that such documents are relevant for establishing the existence of a special situation and/or the lack of deception or obvious negligence on its part, then it is for the party concerned itself to request access to those documents in accordance with the provisions adopted by the institutions under Article 255 EC. It is at the request of the party concerned that the Commission is required to provide access to all non-confidential official documents concerning the contested decision. If no such request is made, it follows that there is no automatic access to the documents held by the Commission. (see para. 88-89) 3. Determination of the origin of goods within the framework, inter alia, of the customs union established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement is based on a division of powers between the authorities of the exporting country and those of the importing country, inasmuch as origin is established by the authorities of the exporting country and the proper working of that system is monitored jointly by the authorities concerned on both sides. That system is justified by the fact that the authorities of the exporting country are in the best position to verify directly the facts which determine origin. That mechanism can function only if the customs authorities of the importing country accept the determinations legally made by the authorities of the exporting country. The recognition of such decisions by the customs authorities of the Member States is necessary in order that the Community can, in turn, demand that the authorities of other countries with which it has concluded free-trade agreements accept the decisions taken by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the origin of products exported from the Community to those non-member countries. (see paras 120-121) 4. An applicant has no legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision on the ground of a procedural defect, where annulment of the decision can only lead to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the decision annulled. (see para. 132) 5. Pursuant to Article 211 EC and the principle of good administration, the Commission has a duty to ensure the proper application of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. That duty also results from the Association Agreement itself and the various decisions adopted by the Association Council. (see para. 234) 6. Under Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, three cumulative conditions must be met for the competent authorities to be able to waive subsequent accounting for import duties. Non-collection must have been due to an error by the competent authorities themselves; their error must be of such a kind that it could not reasonably have been detected by a person liable, acting in good faith; and, finally, the latter must have complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force so far as his customs declaration is concerned. That provision is intended to protect the legitimate expectations of the person liable that all the factors on which the decision whether or not to proceed with recovery of customs duties is based are correct. However, the legitimate expectations of the person liable attract the protection afforded by that provision only if it was the competent authorities themselves which created the basis for his expectations. Thus, only errors attributable to acts of the competent authorities which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable create entitlement to the waiver of post-clearance recovery of customs duties. (see paras 303-304)