Case T-53/02: Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Union transit, action for annulment, customs duties, customs fraud, principle of proportionality, tobacco industry

18.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/27

Action brought on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global
Electronic Finance Management against the Commission
of the European Communities

— There is no proof of any payment having been made in

error by the Commission.

(Case T-29/02)

(2002/C 118/43)

(Language of the case: English)

— The Commission communicated for the first time its
change of position in respect of acceptance of the project
costs only six months after the completion of the project,
and three months after the Final Review Report. By so
doing, the defendant did not communicate its objections
within a reasonable time.

— The Commission has not complied with the general
principles of protection of legitimate expectations, of due
process and of execution of a contract ‘in good faith’.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global
Electronic Finance Management, represented by Mr Matthias
E. Storme and Ms Ann Gobien of Keuleneer, Storme, Vanneste,
Van Varenbergh, Verhelst, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant
equivalent in Euro of the sum of 40 693 ECU;

the

— declare the Commission’s attempt to recover from the
applicant
the sum of 273 516 ECU unfounded and
therefore order the Commission to issue a ‘credit note’
for the amount of 273 516 ECU;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The object of the present application, pursuant to an arbi-
tration clause within the meaning of Article 238 [ex
Article 181] of the EC Treaty,
is an order requiring the
Commission, representing the European Community, to pay
the Applicant the sum of 40 693 ECU,
in respect of the
execution of a contract concluded under the ESPRIT-Pro-
gramme, aiming to stimulate the development of financial
infrastructure, systems and transaction mechanisms necessary
for the successful growth of electronic commerce within the
European Union. The Law of Belgium is the applicable law.

Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos B.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-53/02)

(2002/C 118/44)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos
B.V., established at Delfzijl
(Netherlands), represented by
Martijn Hendrik Fleers, Michel Chatelin and Pierre Metzler,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 3663 final of
16 November 2001 in Case REM 09/00;

(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.

In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits as follows:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— It executed its contractual

tasks correctly, as stated
repeatedly by the Commission during the project
execution and confirmed by the final Review Report. The
amount of the account submitted by the applicant to
the Commission for payment was justified and well
documented. There should be accordingly no grounds on
which the Commission may claim repayment of any
amount.

is the grantee of various customs permits
The applicant
enabling it to organise Community transit. In that context, the
applicant organised various shipments of cigarettes to the
Czech Republic under the rules governing external Community
transit.In the case of certain of those shipments, dating from
1994, it subsequently became apparent that fraud had been
committed by third parties.

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.