Case T-313/04: Action brought on 30 July 2004 by Hewlett-Packard GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: CCT duties, Combined Nomenclature, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), customs duties, printer, tariff preference

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/45

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-312/04)

(2004/C 262/85)

(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 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci,
residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and
Valérie Landes, lawyers.

European Communities on 30 July 2004 by Hewlett-Packard
GmbH, having its registered office in Böblingen (Germany),
represented by Fabienne Boulanger, Marius Mrozek and
Michael Tervooren, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision REM 06/02 of 7 April 2004
holding that a refund is not justified in a specific case.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal
Service awarding him a single priority point of the directo-
rate general in the 2003 promotions procedure, confirmed
and made final by the decision of the appointing authority
rejecting the application to reconsider its decision;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority not to award
the
him any special priority points under the aegis of
‘Comité de promotion pour activités supplémentaires dans
l'intérêt de l'institution’ in the 2003 promotions procedure;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority to award
him a total of 20 points in the 2003 promotions procedure,
the 2003 list of meritorious officials in Grade A 5, the
2003 list of officials promoted to Grade A 4 and, in any
event, the decision not to include his name in those lists;

— annul,

to the extent necessary,

the rejection of his

complaint;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and main arguments in this case are similar to
those relied upon in Case T-311/04 José Luis Buendia Sierra v
Commission

Action brought on 30 July 2004 by Hewlett-Packard
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-313/04)

(2004/C 262/86)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

On 21 December 1995 the applicant released from its customs
warehouse certain goods
(printers and printer cartridges)
originating in Singapore for free circulation within the Com-
munity. A customs debt arose in respect of those goods at the
time of their release for free circulation. According to the appli-
the goods were released for free circulation on 21
cant,
December 1995 in order
the preferential
customs rates in force up to 31 December 1995 could be
claimed. Otherwise, at the time when the goods were released
for free circulation, higher customs rates in respect of their
release would have applied with effect from 1 January 1996.
By Regulation No 3009/95 (1) goods having the same customs
tariff number as those of the applicant were zero-rated with
effect from 1 January 1996.

to ensure that

In November 1996 the applicant applied to the German
customs authorities for a refund of the amount that had been
turned down. The German
charged.
customs authorities, with the agreement of
the applicant,
referred the matter to the Commission.

Its application was

The applicant invokes Article 239 of the Customs Code and
submits that, in view of the delay in the publication of, and
failure timeously to notify, Regulation No 3009/95, and by
reason of its deliberate back-dating and reference to a Council
Regulation No 3093/95 (2) of 22 December 1995 which was
not published until 21 February 1996, the Commission has
infringed the principle that Community institutions must act in
a foreseeable manner and has consequently infringed the prin-
ciple of legal certainty.

The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
Article 12 of Council Regulation No 2658/87, (3) which
prescribes that the full text of the Combined Nomenclature for
a particular year must be published by no later than 31
October of the preceding year. The purpose of that provision is
specifically to provide market participants with reliable infor-
mation on imminent financial consequences and it thus estab-
lishes a basis on which Community citizens can make informed
plans enabling them to act in an appropriate manner.

C 262/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

the imminent

further amendment

The applicant also submits that the Commission breached its
duty of care towards the applicant by failing to inform it in
good time of
to the
Combined Nomenclature. The Commission also proceeded,
when issuing the contested decision, on the basis of circum-
stances which did not objectively obtain. By so doing, the
Commission exceeded the scope of the discretionary power
which it enjoys in this context, thereby adversely affecting the
applicant. The applicant concludes by stating that it did not act
in a patently negligent manner or with any deceitful intention.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ 1995 L 319, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/95 of 22 December 1995 laying
down the rates of duty to be applied by the Community resulting
from negotiations under GATT Article XXIV.6 consequent upon the
accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Union
(OJ 1995 L 334, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
(OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Federal Republic
of Germany against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-314/04)

(2004/C 262/87)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Federal
Republic of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski
and Christoph von Donat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision notified by letter of the
Directorate-General for Regional Policy of 17 May 2004 in
so far as the Community assistance from the European
Regional Development Fund for the Objective 2 Programme
1997-1999
No
97.02.13.005/ARINCO No 97.DE.16.005) was reduced to
EUR 319 046 236.76 and payment to the German authori-
ties of the balance amounting to EUR 5 488 569.24 was
refused;

Rhine-Westphalia

(ERDF

North

of its discretion and that there are mistakes in the contested
decision's reasoning.

By the contested decision the Commission reduced the Com-
munity assistance from the structural
fund (the European
Regional Development Fund) for the Objective 2 Programme
1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia to EUR 319 046 236.76
and refused to pay to the German authorities the balance
amounting to EUR 5 488 569.24. The background to the
reduction is that, compared with the indicative financing plan,
recourse to the programme was lower in the case of certain
measures and higher in the case of others. The balancing out
did not take place within the programme's respective priorities,
but at the level of the programme as a whole.

The Commission is of the view that only a transfer between
measures, and not a transfer between programme priorities, is
possible, or that the latter would have required the Commission
first to have taken a fresh decision. In its view, this also applies
to expenditure under the approved programme that turns out
higher and is not linked to an application for an increase in
ERDF assistance.

The German Government considers the transfers to be objec-
tively justified. It submits that the transfers, which are insignifi-
cant in amount, help to achieve the Community's assistance
objectives. There are no grounds for a reduction. In particular,
the reduction in the approved ERDF assistance cannot be justi-
fied on the basis that the competent authorities and agencies in
the Land North Rhine-Westphalia administered in a flexible
manner the indicative financing plan for the programme for
Community structural interventions in the areas falling within
Objective 2 in respect of the period from 1 January 1997 to
31 December 1999. In this regard, the reduction of the balance
to be paid infringes Community law.

The German Government further submits that, by not allowing
any flexibility at the level of priorities even where, at the end of
a reference period, formal Commission approval can no longer
be attained, the Commission inexpediently restricts the freedom
of action of the Member State or the competent local authori-
ties and agencies.

Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Wam SpA against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-316/04)

(2004/C 262/88)

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

(Language of the case: Italian)

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant complains, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that
secondary Community law and general principles of law have
been infringed, that the Commission has erred in the exercise

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 2 August 2004 against the
Commission of
the European Communities by Wam SpA,
represented by Ernesto Giuliani, lawyer.