Case T-243/01: Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), automatic game, common customs tariff, import, tariff nomenclature

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/35

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001;

(2) declare that the Community is liable for the loss and
damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact
that, since 19 July 2001, imports of the products referred
to in Regulation No 1476/2001 have been prevented or
restricted on account of that regulation, and order that
the parties are to seek to reach agreement concerning the
extent of the loss and damage suffered by the applicant
and that, in the absence of agreement in that regard, the
proceedings are to be resumed within a time-limit to be
fixed by the Court in order for the extent of the loss and
damage to be determined; or, at any rate, order the
Community to pay the damages provisionally estimated
and yet to be assessed, alternatively order the Community
to pay such amount of damages as the Court shall deem
fair and equitable, together with interest at the annual
rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the date of
payment in full;

(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The applicant produces,
in Aruba, sugar and sugar/cocoa
mixtures. Aruba forms part of the association of overseas
countries and territories (OCTs). By virtue of the cumulation
of EC/OCT and ACP/OCT originating status, the sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures produced by the applicant have OCT
originating status and may be imported into the EC free from
levies.

However, by
virtue of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001 (1) amending Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), a quota of
6 684 tonnes was introduced for mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with ACP/OCT originating status during the period from
19 July to 1 December 2001.

of the OCT decision. Moreover, the Commission has failed to
prove any causal
link between those problems and the
deterioration in a sector of the Community’s activity. The
applicant further claims that the importation of sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures from the OCT has no impact on those
problems.

In addition, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
proportionality and infringement of Articles 3 and 182 to 184
of the EC Treaty. It claims that the contested regulation fails to
take account of the preferential treatment afforded by those
articles to the OCTs.

Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers on the part of
the Commission and a failure to provide a statement of reasons
for the contested regulation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
measures with regard to imports from the overseas countries
and territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
L 195 of 19.7.2001, p. 29).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
originating status from the overseas countries and territories for
the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001,
p. 57).

Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer
Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-243/01)

(2002/C 3/61)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant pleads,
the illegality of Regulation
No 1325/2001, which it is contesting in separate proceedings
(Case T-211/01).

first,

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 October 2001 by SONY Com-
puter Entertainment Europe Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
ippe de Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium)

In support of its claim in the present proceedings, the applicant
maintains that the contested regulation infringes Article 109 of
the OCT decision. According to the applicant, the Commission
bases its findings concerning the adoption of the safeguard
measures in question on incorrect facts. Thus, the serious
disturbances or difficulties in a sector of the economy of the
Community cited by the Commission do not constitute serious
disturbances or difficulties within the meaning of Article 109

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) 1400/2001 (1) as
far as it classifies the PlayStation®2 under CN code
9504 10 00 and the accompanying CD-ROM under CN
code 852 43 99 0;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

C 3/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.

The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
specifications in the contested decision.

contested act

The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,
the
violates Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
components in which these functions must be inherent.
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.

— annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit

him to Competition PE/90/A

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı´a Técnica
(technical engineering), is not accepted.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).

(1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
(3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.

Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader
Rivas against European Parliament

Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
AG against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-249/01)

(2002/C 3/62)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Case T-250/01)

(2002/C 3/63)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-
da (Madrid), represented by Diego Lo´ pez Garrido, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.