Case T-55/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde Mondia France against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, abuse of power, appeal to the Court (EU), customs drawback, customs regulations, international transport, transport company

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/37

The applicants also claim that the Commission erred in not
ensuring confidentiality and in failing to have regard for funda-
mental rights, in particular the rights of defence and the prin-
ciple of the presumption of innocence. The applicants further
criticise the Commission for having adopted an adversarial
approach and for having duplicated the proceedings, for having
breached the principle of good administration and,
last, for
having refused access to the OLAF documents in its possession.

The applicants claim that
pecuniary and pecuniary harm.

those errors caused them non-

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted
by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, p. 1).

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde
Mondia France against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-55/05)

(2005/C 93/69)

(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 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde
Mondia France, having its registered office in Rouen (France),
represented by François Citron, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— regard the letter of 7 October 2004 sent by the European
Commission to the Directorate General of Customs in file
REM 2201 as constitutive of a decision of the European
Commission, which adversely affects Rijn Schelde Mondia
France and annul it accordingly;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to the decision alleg-
edly contained in a letter of the Commission dated 7 October
2004 which was sent to the French Directorate General of
Customs.

In this respect,
it is to be borne in mind that the applicant
company requested the French customs authorities by letter of
31 October 2000 to agree to remit the customs duties which
had been notified to it by the Directorate General of Customs
of Rouen and Le Havre,
in respect of a total amount of
EUR 962 058,64. Although the French authorities considered
themselves competent to deal with the application for remis-
sion of duties,
referred the file to the
Commission so that the Commission could rule on ‘whether
the negligence found was manifest in nature or not’.

they nevertheless

By the contested decision the Commission returned the file to
the French customs authorities ‘to be dealt with by your depart-
ment’. Nonetheless,
to the
French authorities that it considered that the applicant was
guilty of manifest negligence and recommended further that
the applicant be refused the benefit of remission of duties.

the Commission did point out

In support of its claims, the applicant asserts that:

— the Commission acted ultra vires in the present case since
although it considered itself not to have the power to deal
with the application for remission of duties, it nevertheless
took a view as to whether the negligence alleged was mani-
fest in nature or not;

— the Commission did not make its decision within the nine-
month time-limit laid down in the second paragraph of
Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Community
Customs Code;

— the Commission failed to observe the duty to give reasons;

— the Commission misused its powers in the present case in
so far as it gave its decision as regards its lack of power
three years after the file had been sent to it by the French
authorities, although it had not known of the argument
relating to lack of power initially raised by the applicant
itself before the French customs authorities.

Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission made a mani-
fest error in its assessment in this case of the constituent
elements of manifest negligence.