EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/7

Appeal brought on 3 December 2009 by Thomson Sales Europe against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

(Case C-498/09 P)

2010/C 80/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Thomson Sales Europe (represented by: F. Goguel and F. Foucault, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of 29 September 2009;

— annul Decision REM No 03/05 of the European Commission of 7 May 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies, in essence, on three pleas in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court failed to have regard to the rules on jurisdiction set out in Article 225 EC, in so far as it delivered a decision on the merits of the appellant’s application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2007 not confirming entitlement to a waiver of post-clearance recovery of import duties on colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand, even though it had previously held that the aforementioned application was inadmissible on the ground that the letter in question was not capable of producing legal effects.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court infringed the rights of the defence and made a manifest error in the legal characterisation of the facts inasmuch as it refused the appellant’s request to make all the evidence relied on available to the parties and, moreover, held that Thomson had displayed obvious negligence since, as an experienced operator, it should have asked the Commission for specific information about the possibility of continuing to declare colour televisions manufactured in Thailand as being of Thai origin after beginning to be supplied with tubes originating in Korea and Malaysia.

By its third ground of appeal, which is in two parts, Thomson claims that the Court infringed Article 239 of the Customs Code (1) with regard to the possibility of full or part repayment of import or export duties paid, or of remission of a certain amount of customs debt. The appellant submits, first, that the Court erred in law in so far as it dismissed its application after considering only the condition relating to the absence of deception or of negligence, without first investigating the condition relating to the existence of a special situation.

Second, the Court made an error in the legal characterisation of the facts, and thus an error of law, in considering that the conditions for remission under Article 239 of the Customs Code had not been fulfilled. According to the appellant, it does indeed satisfy the requirements of that provision, since the circumstances of the case are such as to amount to a special situation in so far as the Commission changed its practice in respect of the interpretation of the relevant provisions without giving operators sufficient warning.

Thomson submits, moreover, that it had no doubt that its operations were being conducted properly, as it was convinced that a single anti-dumping duty, fixed in practice by agreement with the Commission, applied to the whole of its production. It could not, therefore, be regarded as having been negligent.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).