Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from Turkey — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol — Compensatory levy — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Remission of import duty not justified — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2001-09-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, Türkiye, action for annulment (EU), import, television

15.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 259/5

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 May 2001

in Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97,
T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97,
T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG and
Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Importation of television sets
from Turkey — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement —
Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol — Compensatory levy
— Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 —
Remission of import duty not justified — Rights of the
defence)

(2001/C 259/05)

(Language of the case: German, English, French and Dutch)

In Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97,
T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97,
T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG, established
in Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Crown
Europe GmbH, established in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, rep-
resented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, Profex Electronic Verwaltungsge-
sellschaft mbH, established in Tiefenbach, Germany, represent-
ed initially by G. Sobotta and subsequently by E.O. Rau,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Horten
AG, established in Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by D. Ehle
lawyers, with an address for service in
and V. Schiller,
Luxembourg, Dr. Seufert GmbH, established in Karlsruhe,
Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, Grundig AG, established
in Fürth, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Hertie
Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH, established in Frankfurt am
Main, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Lema SA,
established in Gennevilliers, France, represented by F. Goguel,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Masco SA,
formerly Seiga SA (High Tech Industries), established in Thiais,
France, represented by F. Goguel, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, DFDS Transport BV, established in
Venlo, Netherlands, represented by C. Grisart, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, Wilson Holland BV,
established in Hoogvliet Rotterdam, Netherlands, represented
by C. Grisart, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, Elta GmbH, established in Dreieich-Sprendlingen, Ger-
many, represented by G. Breit and A. Breit, lawyers, Miller NV,
established in Willebroek, Belgium, represented by Y. Van

(Agents:

Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, (Agents: in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97,
T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-279/97,
T-280/97 and T-293/97, M. Ewing, R.V. Magrill and D. Wyatt
QC, and, in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97, D. Cooper and
D. Wyatt) Federal Republic of Germany, in Cases T-186/97,
T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, (Agents: initially
E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski and subsequently W.D. Plessing
and C.-D. Quassowski), French Republic, in Cases T-186/97,
T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97 and T-210/97, T-211/97
and T-216/97 to T-218/97,
initially K. Rispal-
Bellanger, G. Mignot and F. Pascal and subsequently K. Rispal-
Bellanger and C. Vasak), against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97
to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97 and T-293/97 initially
R.B. Wainwright and K. Schreyer and subsequently G. zur
Hausen, in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97 initially M. Nolin and
A. Barav and subsequently R. Tricot and A. Barav, in Cases
T-279/97 and T-280/97 R.B. Wainwright and R. Tricot, and
in Case T-147/99 R. Tricot, and J. Stuyck), — application in
Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97,
T-211/97, T-279/97, T-280/97 and T-293/97 for annulment
of the decisions of the Commission of 19 February, 25 March
and 5 June 1997 finding that the remission of import duties is
not justified, and in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97 and T-147/99
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 24 April
1997 and 26 March 1999 finding that import duties must be
recovered and that the remission of those duties is not justified
— the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; P. de
Bandt, Legal secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 10 May 2001, in which it:

1. Annuls Decisions REM 14/96, REM 15/96, REM 16/96,
REM 17/96, REM 18/96, REM 19/96 and REM 20/96 of
19 February 1997 and Decision REM 21/96 of 25 March
1997 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
applications for the remission of import duties.

2. Annuls Decisions REC 7/96, REC 8/96 and REC 9/96 of
24 April 1997 addressed to the French Republic concerning
applications for non-recovery and remission of import duties.

3. Annuls Decisions REM 26/96 and REM 27/96 of 5 June
1996 addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning
applications for remission of import duties.

4. Annuls Decision REC 3/98 of 26 March 1999 addressed to
the Kingdom of Belgium concerning an application for non-
recovery and remission.

C 259/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.9.2001

5. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

— the remainder of the application is dismissed;

6. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
the French Republic and the Federal Republic of

Ireland,
Germany to bear their own costs.

— the parties shall bear their own costs, including those

relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

3.

In Case T-241/99:

(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97, C 378 of 20.12.97, C 94 of 28.3.98 and

C 246 of 28.8.99.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

— the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant
EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material
damage;

— the remainder of the application is dismissed;

— the Commission shall, in addition to bearing its own

costs, pay one-quarter of the applicant’s costs.

of 3 July 2001

(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98 and C 6 of 8.1.98.

in Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99: E v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Temporary agent — Disciplinary action —
Suspension — Disciplinary measure — Termination without
notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third
paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations
— Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment
and damages — No need to adjudicate)

(2001/C 259/06)

(Language of the case: French)

In Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98: E, temporary member
of staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in T.I. (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmen-
tier and V. Peere,
lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application,
in
Case T-24/98, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 12 November 1997 to continue to keep the
applicant on suspension from duties and, secondly, seeking an
order requiring the Community to make good the damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision
and, in Case T-241/99, an application, first, for annulment of
the decision of
the Commission of 22 December 1998
imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of termin-
ation without notice of the temporary-agent contract and,
secondly, seeking an order requiring the Community to make
good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result
of that decision and of the disciplinary procedure — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 13 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:

1.

2.

Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99 are joined for the purposes of
the judgment.

In Case T-24/98:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 16 May 2001

in Case T-68/99 Toditec NV v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (1)

(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
Counterclaim)

(2001/C 259/07)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-68/99 Toditec NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium),
represented by E. Ballon and H. Dubois, avocats, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. de March, M. Shotter and
J. Stuyck) — application pursuant to an arbitration clause
within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 238 EC) for the Commission to be required to pay the
sum of ECU 74 967, plus interest at the rate of 7 % (the legal
rate applicable in Belgium) as from 5 June 1998, and
counterclaim by the Commission for the applicant to be
required to pay it the sum of EUR 54 486, plus interest at the
rate of 7 % as from 31 January 1999 — the Court of First
Instance, composed of (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio
Gonza´lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 16 May 2001, in which it:

1. Allows the applicant’s claim in so far as it seeks reimbursement
of expenditure on consumables amounting to EUR 4 642.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application.

— there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for

annulment;

3. Allows the Commission’s counterclaim.