Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:42
Date: 2004-02-12
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Own resources of the Communities
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

summary declaration to be assigned a customs-approved treatment or use, whereas Article 239 of that code refers to a very different matter, namely the repayment or remission of import duties or export duties. In any event, irrespective of whether or not Söhl & Söhlke is relevant for the interpretation of Article 239 of the Customs Code, the Court considers that the conditions laid down in that judgment are not met in the present case. None of the factors relied upon by the applicant constitutes exceptional circumstances not coming within any of the occupational hazards inherent in the business, within the meaning of the case-law. In particular, as the Commission pointed out in the contested decision, the theft of goods is one of the most frequently reported incidents, against which traders are normally insured, in particular those which specialise in the haulage of high-risk goods, that is to say those which are heavily taxed. 66. The Court therefore holds that the Commission has not committed a manifest error of assessment by taking the view that the circumstances of the present case did not constitute a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the Customs Code and Article 905 of the implementing regulation. 67. It follows from the foregoing that the second plea in law is not well founded. 68. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed. Costs 69. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber), hereby: 1. Dismisses the application; 2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. Lindh García-Valdecasas Cooke Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 February 2004. H. Jung P. Lindh Registrar President 1: Language of the case: German.