Case T-69/02: Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, indemnification, processing industry, producer organisation, sea fish

C 118/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2002

In 1997 the applicant submitted to the Netherlands customs
authorities an application for remission of
import duties
pursuant to Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 (1), since
the applicant itself had not been involved in the fraud and had,
moreover,
the fraud.
taken all possible steps to prevent
According to the applicant, it was not to blame, in connection
with those shipments, for any fraudulent acts or manifest
negligence. The Netherlands authorities passed that application
on to the Commission in accordance with Article 905 of
Regulation No 2454/93 (2). By the contested decision, the
Commission refused the remission of the customs duties.

Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
proportionality. It claims that the duty charged is in any event
disproportionate to any negligence on its part.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
19.10.1992, p. 1).

(2) 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 L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1).

The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 907 of
Regulation No 2454/93. According to the applicant, the time-
limit of nine months for issuing the decision was wrongly
extended three times. The applicant further claims that its
rights of defence have been infringed. It states that it was not
kept informed of the course of the procedure, and in particular
of the questions put by the Commission to the Netherlands
authorities. Furthermore, the applicant was initially denied
access to the complete file for the purposes of submitting its
observations. However, the Commission calculated the time
which elapsed in that connection as an extension of time. Yet,
according to the applicant, the time-limit for taking a decision
could not be extended whilst the applicant remained unaware
of the questions put and was denied complete access to the
file.

The applicant further pleads infringement of the principle of
legal certainty. It argues that, pursuant to Article 907 of
Regulation No 2454/93, a decision in its favour must be
deemed to have been taken after nine months had elapsed,
since it was not aware of any extension of the time-limit
provided for in that article.

The applicant further contests the Commission’s conclusion
that it was manifestly negligent. It argues that it did not itself
infringe any rules of
law and acted in accordance with
established usages and international practice. There was no
causal link between the involvement of the applicant and the
fraud which was perpetrated.

Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organizacio´ n de
Productores de Tu´ nidos Congelados against Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-69/02)

(2002/C 118/45)

(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 12 March 2002 by the Organiza-
cio´ n de Productores de Tu´ nidos Congelados, whose registered
office is in Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramo´ n
Garcia-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillém Carrau, law-
yers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— annul the measure which is the subject-matter of the
present action by which the European Commission has
reduced the quantities in respect of which OPTUC is
eligible for compensation, namely, Article 2(2) of and
the annex to Regulation Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2496/2001 of 19 December 2001 providing for
compensation to producer organisations for tuna deliver-
ed to the processing industry between 1 January and
31 March 2001 (1),

— make any other appropriate order requiring the Com-
mission to fulfil its obligations under Article 233 EC and,
in particular, order the European Commission to re-
examine the matter;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

18.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Take any other measure it may consider appropriate;

In the present case, the applicant, a Spanish frozen tunny
producers’ organisation which has previously contested before
the Court of First Instance a number of Commission regu-
lations providing for compensation to producer organisations
for tuna delivered to the processing industry for the quarters
between 1 July 1999 and 31 December 2000 (2), is challenging
the regulation relating to the period between 1 January and
31 March 2001.

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

(1) OJ 2001 L 337, p. 25.
(2) Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01.
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.

Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric
S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-77/02)

(2002/C 118/46)

(Language of the case: French)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the parent company of a group which is active
in the production and sale of products and systems in the
sectors of distribution of electricity,
industrial control and
automation. On 16 February 2001 it formally informed the
Commission of the concentration it intended to enter into
with Legrand, the parent company of a group operating in the
production and sale of low-voltage electrical equipment.

The commission declared the operation incompatible with
the common market. The applicant brought an action for
annulment of that decision (Case T-310/01; notice published
in OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 15). The Commission then ordered
the applicant, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4064/89 (1), to separate from Legrand. The latter
decision is the subject of the present proceedings.

The applicant observes, first, that in its opinion the decision
declaring the concentration incompatible with the common
market should be annulled. Since the decision at issue in the
present action is the direct consequence of the first decision,
the unlawfulness of the first decision entails the unlawfulness
of the present decision.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Schneider
Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-
resented by Antoine Winckler and Eric de La Serre, lawyers.

The applicant observes further that the effect of the contested
decision is to deprive the applicant of its lawfully held rights
of property.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul in its entirety, and in the alternative in part, the
Commission’s decision of 30 January 2002 requiring
undertakings to be separated (Case COMP/M.2283 —
Schneider/Legrand) on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

In support of the present application, the applicant claims,
first, that there has been an infringement of its right of access
to the case-file and its right to a proper hearing. The applicant
also considers that the report of the hearing officer did not
examine compliance with the rights of the defence throughout
the procedure. The applicant also claims that there was a
breach of the obligation to state reasons.