Case T-25/03: Action brought on 28 January 2003 by Marco de Stefano against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-04-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrative competition, administrator, audit, competition (EU), equivalence of diplomas

5.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/23

Action brought on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi di
Frutta against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-23/03)

(2003/C 83/51)

(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 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi
di Frutta, Verona, Italy, represented by D. Ehle, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2002
(REC 10/01), in so far as the Commission refused to remit
or
to
ITL 3 296 190 371 collected by way of post-clearance
recovery in respect of 32 imports covered by 32 specified
A.TR.1 certificates;

amounting

import

duties

repay

the

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 (1) abolished, with certain
exceptions, the customs duties imposed on the goods originat-
ing in Turkey listed in Annex II to the EEC Treaty.

Between 5 April 1995 and 20 November 1997, the applicant,
an Italian company which, inter alia, processes imported fruit
juice concentrates, put on the market for free circulation apple
and pear juice concentrates declared to originate in Turkey.
According to the applicant, the shipments were accompanied
by proper documents,
including the A.TR.1 movement of
goods certificates. In 1998, the customs authorities in Ravenna
presented the applicant with a list of A.TR.1 certificates. On
the basis of examinations of the authenticity and regularity of
the certificates carried out at the offices of the Turkish customs
authority, it was alleged that the applicant had imported apple
juice concentrates with falsified A.TR.1 certificates. At the
same time, the applicant was required to pay import duties by
way of post-clearance recovery.

the

same

The applicant lodged an objection to the customs assessment
notices issued by the competent customs authority in Ravenna.
At
remission under
Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of the Customs Code. The
Italian tax authorities submitted the decision on the remission
of
the import duties collected by way of post-clearance
recovery to the Commission.

applied for

time,

it

In the contested decision, the Commission, inter alia, takes the
view that 32 A.TR.1 certificates were falsified. The Commission
of
refused
ITL 3 296 190 371.

applicant’s

remission

request

the

for

In support of its claim for annulment of the part of the
Commission’s decision refusing remission, the applicant sub-
mits that the Commission infringed its right of access to the
file, inasmuch as, in the course of providing access to the file,
the Commission failed to disclose and produce to the applicant
all the documents relevant to the case.

The applicant further submits that the Commission failed to
comply with its remission or repayment obligation under
Article 239 of the Customs Code in respect of the 32 allegedly
falsified A.TR.1 certificates, since those 32 certificates too were
issued and registered and handed over to the exporter when
clearing the goods for export with the knowledge and cooper-
ation of the competent Turkish customs authority, which was
aware of the possibility that the goods might not be of Turkish
origin.

Moreover, the Commission infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the
Customs Code since the Turkish customs authorities knew or
could reasonably have known that the deliveries for which the
32 A.TR 1 certificates were issued, were not of Turkish origin,
whereas, when importing the products, the applicant acted in
good faith and was unaware of the misconduct of the Turkish
customs authority.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 of 22 December 1986 on
imports into the Community of agricultural products originating
in Turkey (OJ 1986 L 380, p. 16).

Action brought on 28 January 2003 by Marco de Stefano
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-25/03)

(2003/C 83/52)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 January 2003 by Marco de
Stefano, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Guy Verbrugge, lawyers.

C 83/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.4.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s
candidature and refusing to admit him to the written
procedure in open competition EUR/A/166/01, as noti-
fied to him by decision of the appointing authority of
8 April 2002;

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 18 November 2002 in file R 803/2001-2;

— uphold, therefore, the applicant’s opposition to regis-

tration of the trade mark ‘CARPO’, and

— in the alternative, order compensation for non-material

damage provisionally estimated at EUR 2 500;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case challenges the decision
refusing to allow him to take part in the tests in competition
EUR/A/166/01, held for the purpose of constituting a reserve
for recruitment of A7/A6 administrators in the area of
auditing, on the ground that the qualifications and diplomas
produced by the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid
down in point
the notice of competition. The
Selection Board considered that the applicant’s qualifications of
‘Ragioniere e Perito Commerciale’ and ‘Revisore Commerciale’
could not be regarded as equivalent to the qualification of
‘Dottore Commercialista’.

III.B.2 of

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges failure to comply
with of the notice of competition and infringement of the duty
to state reasons, and alleges that there was in the circumstances
of the case a manifest error of assessment. Specifically, he
argues that the Selection Board erred in its assessment of his
qualifications, diplomas, professional activity and training
periods in auditing which in fact enable him to claim a
professional qualification of equivalent level.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Basf Aktiengegesellschaft

The Community trade Word mark ‘CARPO’ for products
in class 5 (fungicides, herbicides,
mark concerned:
insecticides and pesticides).

Applicant.

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Spanish word mark ‘HARPO Z’
for products in Class 5 (prep-
arations for destroying vermin,
fungicides, herbicides).

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Action dismissed.

Grounds of claim:

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
lihood of confusion)

Action brought on 31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscien-
ce S.A. against Office for the Harmonisation of the
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
Alliance Ltd. against the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market

(Case T-35/03)

(2003/C 83/53)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Case T-37/03)

(2003/C 83/54)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscience S.A., the registered
office of which is in Lyon (France), represented by Enrique
Armijo Chávarri.

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
Alliance Ltd., Reading, United Kingdom, represented by Ms
Alexandra Dellmeier, Attorney at Law.