Case T-283/01: Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), aid system, fishery product, monetary compensatory amount, producer organisation

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/17

1.

2.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans AG
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-282/01)

(2002/C 44/33)

(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 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans
AG, established at Rickenbach bei Wil (Switzerland), represent-
ed by J. Weigell, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision (REM 19/00) of 18 July
2001 finding the remission of import duty by the Federal
Republic of Germany to the applicant to be unjustified,
and authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant
to Article 908(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), to
remit to the applicant, in accordance with its application
of 28 May 1998, duty already paid in the sum of
DEM 395 392,01;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In May 1997 the applicant despatched, at a principal customs
office in Belgium, 12 110 000 cigarettes under the external
transportation from
Community transit procedure
Antwerp to Montenegro, the customs office of destination
being in Austria. During a stop at a motorway rest area, the
lorry and the consignment which it was carrying were
stolen; the lorry driver reported the theft immediately at the
competent police headquarters.

for

The parties are in dispute concerning the question whether, on
the facts, the defendant is obliged, pursuant to Article 239 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), to authorise the Federal
Republic of Germany to remit the customs duties already paid.

The applicant argues that the remission application should be
granted, not least because the Commission did not give a
decision within the nine-month time-limit prescribed by
Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code.
The applicant further claims that it has been the victim of
organised crime and that the theft of the lorry occurred in
‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 239 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

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

Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organizacio´ n
de Productores de Tu´ nidos Congelados against Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-283/01)

(2002/C 44/34)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2001 by Organiza-
cio´ n de Productores de Tu´ nidos Congelados, whose registered
office is at Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramo´ n
Garcia-Gallardo and Javier Guillén Carrau, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible;

— annul

the act which is the subject of

the present
application, by which the European Commission has
reduced the quantities eligible for compensatory allow-
ance in respect of OPTUC, namely, Article 2(2) of and the
annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2001 of
20 August 2001 providing for compensation to producer
organisations for tuna delivered to the processing industry
between 1 October and 31 December 2000 (1);

C 44/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.2.2002

— order any other measure which the Court may deem
appropriate requiring the Commission to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 233 EC and, more specifically,
requiring the Commission to reexamine the situation;

— in the alternative, declare the decision in question void in

its entirety;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

graph 72 of the decision;

pay all the costs.

— annul the applicant’s commitment as set out in para-

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Spanish organisation of producers of frozen
tunny which has previously challenged before the Court of
First Instance a number of Commission regulations providing
for compensatory allowances granted to producer organis-
ations for the tuna supplied to the Community processing
industry in the quarters between 1 July 1999 and 30 September
2000 (2), challenges in the present case the regulation relating
to the period between 1 October and 31 December 2000.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-142/01 (3).

(1) OJ 2001 L 224, p. 4.
(2) Case T-142/01.
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.

Action brought on 27 November 2001 by Der Grüne
Punkt — Duales System Deutschland Aktiengesellschaft
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-289/01)

(2002/C 44/35)

(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 27 November 2001 by Der Grüne
Punkt — Duales System Deutschland Aktiengesellschaft, Co-
logne (Germany), represented by W. Deselaers, B. Meyring and
E. Wagner, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare Article 3(a) and (b) of

the
defendant of 17 September 2001 (C(2001) 2672 final)
relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement void;

the Decision of

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since 1991 the applicant has operated what is currently the
only system covering the whole of Germany for the collection
and recovery of used sales packaging bearing its trade mark
‘Der Grüne Punkt’
(‘Green Dot’). The applicant organises
regular collections of packaging from nearly all private house-
holds in Germany. The applicant grants domestic and foreign
manufacturers and/or distributors the right to mark sales
packaging covered by the applicant’s exemption system under
the terms of a uniform agreement on use of the mark.

In September 1992 the applicant notified the Commission of
its statutes and a sample of the agreements underlying the
system. In January 1996, at the request of the defendant, the
applicant gave the commitment on joint use set out
in
paragraph 71 of the contested decision and subject to various
restrictions. In March 1997 the Commission announced its
intention to take a favourable view of all the agreements
notified pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 (1).

By decision of 20 April 2001 the Commission required the
applicant also to allow the use of the ‘Green Dot’ mark for
packaging which is not part of the applicant’s system but part
of that of a competitor and is intended for disposal by that
competitor. The applicant brought an action against that
decision before the Court of First Instance (2).

In June 2001 the defendant informed the applicant that it
intended to attach conditions to the the decision on exemption.
According to the applicant those conditions go far beyond the
commitment given by the applicant. On 17 September 2001
the defendant finally issued the contested decision on exemp-
tion subject to two such conditions.

The applicant seeks the annulment of Article 3(a) and (b) of
that decision and submits that the conditions imposed in it
prejudice its legal position as it is forced to accept the use of
its collection and sorting facilities by competitors.