Case C-56/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, customs regulations, customs union, interpretation of the law, legal code, simplification of formalities

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/29

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case
of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden

(Case C-56/02)

(2002/C 109/49)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 22 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt
(Principal Customs Office) Weiden on the following question:

Is Article 187, second paragraph, of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (OJ 1992
to be interpreted as meaning that, where
L 302, p. 1)
compensating products that are declared as returned goods are
released for free circulation, the factual particulars required to
calculate the import duties legally owed on those compensating
products must also be declared and proved, or is it for the
endorsing customs office, so far as possible, to ascertain those
factual particulars from the supervising office using an INF 1
sheet, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 613 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) 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), in the version in force
until 30 June 2001?

(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.

was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 February 2002 by Compan˜ ı´a Espan˜ ola
para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox), established in
Madrid, Spain, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested judgment of

the Court of First
Instance of 13 December 2001 in case T-48/98; as well
as

— annul the Commission’s decision of 21 January 1998
fining the Appellant or at the very least substantially
reduce the amount of the fine, or alternatively refer the
case back to the Court of First Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is flawed for the following reasons:

— the Court of First Instance based its findings with regard
to Acerinox’s participation in the alleged cartel in Spain
on a manifestly erroneous construction of the Appellant’s
pleadings and therefore failed to properly motivate its
judgment on this point;

Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compan˜ ı´a
Espan˜ ola para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in case T-48/98 between
Compan˜ ı´a Espan˜ ola para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A.
(Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-57/02 P)

(2002/C 109/50)

rejection of

— the Court of First Instance failed to adequately motivate
its
its
implementation of the alloy surcharge outside Spain,
which did not follow the pattern allegedly agreed in
December 1993, reflected mere parallelism of conduct;

the Appellant’s argument

that

— the Court of First Instance has applied an erroneous legal
test in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement;

— even if an infringement could be said to continue for as
long as its consequences are felt (rather than for as
long as some concertation continues to exist between
undertakings), the Court of First Instance failed to motiv-
ate its rejection as irrelevant of the Appellant’s argument
that, in July 1994, the price of nickel reached its original
level;

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in case T-48/98 (1) between
Compan˜ ı´a Espan˜ ola para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A. (Aceri-
nox) and the Commission of the European Communities,

— the Court of First Instance failed to properly motivate its
rejection of the Appellant’s argument concerning the
disproportionate level of its fine when its position on the
market is compared to that of other addressees of the
decision;