Case T-142/04: Action brought on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), agro-industry, customs debt, inward processing

C 168/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.6.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

In these proceedings, the applicant, who, on his recruitment in
October 1985, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges
the decision of the appointing authority refusing to revise that
classification, placing him in Grade A6, step 2, and not in
Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and
limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification
to 5 October 1995.

The pleas relied on by the applicant in support of his claims
are the same as those relied on by the applicant in Case T-125/
04 Rousseaux v Commission.

specifically,
rule and of the right of access to the case-file.

it pleads infringement of the audi alteram partem

The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
Regulation No 1430/79 (2) on the repayment or remission of
import or export duties, as well as a breach of Article 239 of
Regulation No 2913/92 (3)
the Community
Customs Code, and of Articles 905 to 909 inclusive of Regu-
lation No 2454/93 (4) laying down provisions for the imple-
mentation of Regulation No 2913/92. The applicant also
alleges breach of the obligation under Article 253 EC to state
reasons.

establishing

Action brought on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V. against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-142/04)

(2004/C 168/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V.,
having its registered office in The Hague (Netherlands), repre-
sented by H.J. Bronkhorst and J.F. van Nouhuys.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

I. annul the decision of 5 January 2004 addressed to it by the

Commission of the European Communities;

II. order the European Commission to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant takes issue with the Commission's decision that
remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case.
That decision was adopted following annulment by the Court
of Justice of Commission Decision C/2000/485 final in Case C-
156/00 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission. (1)

The applicant imported maize into the EC under the inward
processing arrangements. The maize was to be processed into
glucose, which in turn was re-exported. For that purpose the
applicant had the necessary authorisations for the system of
equivalent
in the
contested decision that the exported glucose was not obtained
entirely from maize but also from wheat originating on the EC
market. The Netherlands authorities thereupon recovered the
import duties owing. In the contested decision the Commission
turned down the request for remission of that debt.

compensation. The Commission states

In support of its application the applicant first submits that
there has been a breach of the rights of the defence. More

The Commission, the applicant argues, erred in finding that the
applicant was manifestly negligent in regard to meeting the
conditions governing its authorisation for inward processing.
According to the applicant,
the glucose to be exported,
produced from wheat and maize, had the same characteristics
as glucose obtained solely from maize. The applicant submits
further that both products come under one single CN code. It
claims that the only reproach which may be made against it is
that it exported the glucose in part after expiry of the six-
month period set out in the authorisation.

The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been an
infringement of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Judgment in Case C-156/00 Netherlands v Commission [2003] ECR

I-2527.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repay-
ment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p.
1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-

lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(4) 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).

Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française
1 SA against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-144/04)

(2004/C 168/15)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Fran-
çaise 1 SA, established in Boulogne (France), represented by J.-
P. Hordies, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.