Case T-337/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-01-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), import, import licence, originating product, textile industry

C 4/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.1.2001

Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Gold-
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex Textil
Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-335/00)

(2001/C 4/12)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case T-337/00)

(2001/C 4/13)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Anthony
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
Merriman White, London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex
Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH, Essen (Germany),
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision REM 32/99 of 29 June 2000;

— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of

EUR 1 000 000 to the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order the amount of damages to bear default interest at
the annual rate of 4,5 % from the date of the judgment
until the actual payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case has studied law and in 1999
completed the Bar Vocational Course, a prerequisite for the
admission to the Bar of England and Wales and the practice of
law as a barrister.

He has lodged under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17, a
complaint relating to the requirement in certain circumstances
that a barrister should supply legal services only if briefed or
instructed by a professional client. This rule should constitute
restriction of competition contrary to Article 85 (now
Article 81) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as consumers of legal
services are denied access to the market in legal services.

The applicant submits that, from a general point of view, the
defendant incurred non-contractual liability by committing a
misuse of power by refusing to adopt forthwith all measures
necessary to prevent the misrepresentation of the legal status
of lawyers known as barristers by the Bar Council, in order to
seal off the market for the supply of legal services to Lawyers
entitled to practice as barristers by concealing the Community
nature and effects of the professional qualification and the
professional title required to be awarded by a Law school in
the United Kingdom on completion of the theoretical and
practical training for access to the profession of barrister.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action concerns a decision by the Commission of 29 June
2000, refusing an application by the Federal Republic of
Germany for leave to waive payment by the applicant of
import duties of DEM 1 213 442 in respect of the importation
of textile goods from Bangladesh. Post-clearance recovery of
the duties was demanded of the applicant on account of
the revocation of preference certificates of the competent
authorities in Bangladesh.

The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
to a fair hearing, as at the time of the inspection of the files the
applicant was not presented with all the relevant supporting
documents. Nor could the applicant be accused of any obvious
negligence for the purposes of Article 239 of the Community
Customs Code. It had concluded normal commercial trans-
actions with producers and exporters in Bangladesh, whereby
it was not apparent that some of the goods did not originate
in Bangladesh. The applicant had thus acted in good faith on
importation.

Furthermore,
the Commission failed to take account of
maladministration by the Bangladeshi authorities in the issue
of certificates of origin and monitoring of the origin require-
ments. Even the Commission itself had acted improperly, in
that, inter alia, it did not sufficiently supervise compliance with
the rules on origin and failed to issue a timely warning to
importers.

further submits that

The applicant
the
protection of persons acting in good faith, equal treatment,
proportionality and equity in individual circumstances call for
remission of the duties demanded post-clearance.

the principles of