Case T-496/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by NORTRAIL Transport GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Norway, action for annulment (EU), customs drawback, customs duties, fishery product, free circulation, import, tariff quota, transport company

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/29

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by NORTRAIL
Transport GmbH against the Commission of the European
Communities

from 1 September 1995 when the applicant applied for the
duty-free release for free circulation of the goods concerned,
some of those quotas had already been used up, which to some
extent was the case even before 1 September 1995, given the
retrospective opening of quotas with effect from 1 July 1995.

(Case T-496/04)

(2005/C 93/58)

(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 23 December 2004 by NORTRAIL
Transport GmbH of Kiel (Germany), represented by J Krause,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul the decision of the Commission dated 1 October
2004 (REM 15/02) on the application by the company
NORTRAIL Transport GmbH for repayment of
import
duties pursuant to Article 239 of the Customs Code Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since July 1995,
the applicant has continuously imported
consignments of various fishery products from Norway. In the
context of tariff quotas opened pursuant to Council Regulation
(EC) No 3061/95 (1), the applicant applied for the duty-free
release of the goods for free circulation with effect from 1
September 1995. The competent customs office determined
that the customs exemption which the applicant had applied
for could not be granted in respect of a certain number of
consignments, and that the standard tariff rate applied. On that
basis, the relevant customs office demanded that the applicant
pay import duties for the release for free circulation of the
goods concerned. The applicant paid part of the import duties.

The applicant argues that
there are special circumstances
within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No
2913/1992 (2), as a result of which it is entitled to repayment
and remission of import duties.

The applicant bases this assertion, among other, on the argu-
ment that a Community measure had been adopted with retro-
spective effect. German customs offices were informed of the
opening of tariff quotas with effect from 1 September 1995 by
a notice from the German Federal Ministry of Finance on 31
August 1995. On 4 October 1995, however, German customs
offices were notified that those quotas had in fact been opened
retrospectively with effect from 1 July 1995. In the period

further submits that

The applicant
the measure adopted is
inadequate and misleading, and that the discrepancy between
the date the Community measure was published and the
opening date of the tariff quotas which the measure regulates
and which take effect retrospectively, is misleading. This makes
it possible for national customs authorities to interpret the
opening date of the tariff quotas differently, which infringes the
principle of non-discrimination.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3061/95 of 22 December 1995
amending Regulation (EC) No 992/95 opening and providing for
the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain agri-
cultural and fishery products originating in Norway (OJ 1995 L
327, p. 1).

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

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

Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wieland Werke
AG, Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. and Austria Bunt-
the European
metall AG against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-11/05)

(2005/C 93/59)

(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 18 January 2005 by Wieland
Werke AG, Ulm (Germany), Buntmetall Anstetten Ges.m.b.H.,
Amstetten (Austria), and Austria Buntmetall AG, Enzesfeld
(Austria), represented by R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the Commission of 3 September
2004, amended on 20 October 2004 (Case COMP/E-1/
38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes);