C 372/14 EN 23.12.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food SpA The authorities in question in fact endorsed the validity of the
ATR 1 certificates issued, proving that they were not misled against the Commission of the European Communities
by declarations made by the exporting companies. The main
argument put forward by the Commission that in the present(Case T-327/00)case there was no ‘inward-processing’ error on the part of the
authorities thus fails.
(2000/C 372/28)
The question as to whether the other two conditions laid down
in Article 222 were fulfilled was contested by the Commission
(Language of the case: Italian) only indirectly.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- So far as concerns the alleged error of interpretation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the rule against intermingling, the applicant claims that the
European Communities on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food Commission’s certainty that mingling of Turkish and Com-
SpA, represented by Roberto Delfino, of the Genoa Bar, munity goods was prohibited caused the Community inspec-
Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, Flora Santaniello, of the tors to fail to calculate the proportion of raw material
Lecce Bar, Daniele P. Domenicucci, of the Pescara Bar, with an originating in third countries and to verify to what extent, if
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain any, it exceeded the tolerance level (10 %) provided for by the
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I Decision of the EEC-Turkey Association Council.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision C(2000)1612 of 19 June
2000 rejecting the request not to proceed with thepost-clearance recovery, under Article 220(2)(b) of the
Community Customs Code, of import duties in respect
of three consignments of tuna from Turkey covered byAction brought on 24 October 2000 by Mario CostacurtaIM4 documents No 548/P of 8 September 1995,against the Commission of the European CommunitiesNo 866/E of 9 January 1996, and No 2656/H of
24 January 1996;
(Case T-328/00)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
(2000/C 372/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
(Language of the case: French)
The present case concerns the challenge by the CommunityAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-authorities of the ATR 1 certificates issued by Turkey in respectties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theof the release into free circulation, by customs at Genoa, ofEuropean Communities on 24 October 2000 by Mariothree consignments of tinned tuna purchased from the TurkishCostacurta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit,undertaking Kervitas. The Community authorities argued thatof the Luxembourg Bar.most of the raw material used in the manufacture of the
exported products was not of exclusively Turkish origin and
that the undertakings involved had not physically separatedThe applicant claims that the Court should:the raw material of Turkish origin from the rest.
— annul the implied rejection of the Commission of the
European Communities of his request of 6 June 2000; In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code, breach of
the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to — order that the applicant be re-assigned to a third country
provide a statement of reasons as provided for in Article 253 with effect from 1 September 2000, pursuant to Article 3
of the EC Treaty. of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
— order the Commission of the European Communities toSo far as concerns Article 220 of the abovementioned Code,pay all the costs of the proceedings;the applicant claims that, assuming that the post-clearance
recovery of the duties was well-founded (which is at the very
least doubtful) and that the Turkish authorities had committed — reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas and
actions, in particular with regard to compensation for an error when issuing the certificate of origin, such an error
should be characterised as an ‘inward-processing error’. damage.
23.12.2000 EN C 372/15 Official Journal of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
to a hearing, because on its inspection of the files it was
not presented with all the relevant supporting documents.The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for OfficialMoreover, because of the improper conduct of the SpanishPublications of the European Communities, is contesting theauthorities and the Commission, particularly in the area ofdecision rejecting his request to be assigned to a third countryquota administration, special circumstances existed within thepursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations ofmeaning of Article 13 of the Regulation. It also maintains thatofficials.there is no proof or any convincing evidence of alleged forgery,
and that the Commission has explained the facts in a defective
and incomplete manner.The pleas in law and main arguments are largely identical with
those relied upon in Case T-202/00.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
L 175, p. 1).
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch
Ex- und Import GmbH against the Commission of the
European Communities
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Stefano Cocchi(Case T-329/00)and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
Communities
(2000/C 372/30)
(Case T-330/00)
(Language of the case: German)(2000/C 372/31)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the(Language of the case: French)European Communities on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch
Ex- und Import GmbH, established in Troisdorf, Germany,
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechstsanwalt, Cologne. An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 26 October 2000 by StefanoThe applicant claims that the Court should:Cocchi and Evi Hainz, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
— annul Commission Decision K(2000) 2207 endg. of
25 July 2000 (REM 49/99);
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000 and of
22 February 2000 not to accept the applicants’ candi-Pleas in law and main argumentsdature for the posts advertised in vacancy notices
COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000 and
COM/R/5500/00 of 24 January 2000, or, in the alterna- The action is brought against the Commission’s decision of
tive, to annul those vacancy notices; 25 July 2000, in which the latter refused the application by
the Federal Republic of Germany to grant the applicant
remission of import duties for the importation of beef on the — annul the appointments made by the AECC, of unknown
basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (
1). The date, in the context of the recruitment procedures put in
Commission maintains in the contested decision that the motion by those two vacancy notices;
extracts submitted by the applicant at the time of import
clearance were forgeries, and that licence forgeries fall within— order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damagesthe business risk of the applicant. Neither the Spanish auth-for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, suchorities which issued the licences nor the Commission hadsum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;acted improperly, so the normal business risk to be borne by
importers of goods benefiting from customs advantages was
not exceeded. — order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.