Order — ECLI:EU:T:2009:165
Date: 2009-05-25
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded
Origin: Portugal

Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-159/09 ('Official Journal of the European Union' C 153, 4 July 2009, p. 44) The notice to the OJ in Case T-159/09 Biofrescos v Commission is to be read as follows: 'Action brought on 21 April 2009 - Biofrescos - Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-159/09) Language of the case: Portuguese Parties Applicant: Biofrescos - Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. Magalhães e Menezes, lawyer) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Forms of order sought Annul Commission Decision C (2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009 rejecting the applicant's request for remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 41 271,09 and ordering that that amount be entered into the accounts a posteriori. Pleas in law and main arguments Between September 2003 and February 2005, the applicant imported a number of consignments of frozen prawns from Indonesia, for which it sought remission of import duties pursuant to Articles 220(2)(b), 236 and 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. 1 The applicant submits that the Commission infringed, at the very least, those provisions in so far as: first, it made no observations on any of the arguments put forward by the applicant in its request for remission of import duties; secondly, the reasons given by the Commission were inadequate, misleading and incomprehensible; thirdly, it misinterpreted the error made by the Indonesian authorities themselves; fourthly and last, the Commission deemed to be proved facts which are not actually proved, the burden of proving which fell, subsequently, to the bodies involved in the procedure and not the applicant.' ____________ 1 - OJ 1992 L 97, p. 38.