Case T-82/06: Action brought on  14 March 2006  — Apple Computer International v Commission
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, EC Regulation, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), screen, tariff nomenclature

C 108/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

that

furthermore submits

The applicant
the Commission
committed a manifest error of law and appreciation by opening
the formal
investigation procedure without having objective
grounds for finding that the applicant's power purchase agree-
ments contain State aid. According to the applicant,
the
Commission failed to assess the nature of the applicant's power
purchase agreements in the light of the circumstances at the
time they were concluded, made an inadequate assessment of
the notion of economic advantage and of the notion of distor-
tion of competition and impact on trade within the meaning of
Article 87(1) EC.

fact represents a decision, which although in the form of a
regulation, is of direct and individual concern to the appli-
cant;

— annul Commission Regulation

(EC) No 2171/2005
concerning the classification of certain goods
in the
Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 346, p. 7) in so far as it
classifies the colour monitor of the liquid crystal device
type described in item 2 of the table in the annex to that
regulation under CN Code 8528 21 90;

The applicant also submits that the Commission has erred in
finding that the power purchase agreements contain new aid,
as they were concluded prior to the opening of the Hungarian
electricity market.

— declare that monitors meeting the technical specifications
contained in item 2 of the annex to the contested Regu-
lation are properly classified in heading 8471 of
the
Combined Nomenclature;

Finally,
reasoning is inadequate.

the applicant claims that

the contested decision's

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

bear the costs of the present proceedings.

(1) State aid — Hungary — State aid No C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005)
— Hungarian Stranded Costs — Invitation to submit comments
pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)
(OJ 2005 C 324, p. 12)

(2) Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic,
the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of
Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the
Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia
and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on
which the European Union is founded - Annex IV: List referred to
in Article 22 of the Act of Accession - 3. Competition policy (OJ
2003 L 236, p. 797)

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC
Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1)

Action brought on 14 March 2006 — Apple Computer
International v Commission

(Case T-82/06)

(2006/C 108/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Computer International (Cork, Ireland) [repre-
sented by: G. Breen, Solicitor, P. Sreenan, SC, B. Quigley, BL]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare that the classification contained in item 2 of the
Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/2005 in

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested Regulation classifies four Liquid Crystal Displays
(LCDs) at two different CN codes in the Combined Nomencla-
ture. The applicant notes that, although the device referred to
at item 2 in the annex to the contested regulation (the device)
is not identified as the applicant's product, the technical charac-
teristics and description contained therein conclusively identify
the product as being the Apple 20″ LCD.

The applicant submits that by classifying its 20″ LCD at
heading 8528, the Commission has infringed Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) and committed a
manifest error in the interpretation of the Community rules on
tariff classification.

The applicant submits that the device satisfies, pursuant to
heading 8471, as interpreted in Legal Note 5 to Chapter 84 of
the Combined Nomenclature, the criteria for classification as a
‘unit’ of an automatic data-processing machine,
is of a kind
solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing
machine and, moreover, is not capable of performing a specific
function other than data processing. According to the appli-
cant, the classification under heading 8528 therefore consti-
tutes a manifest error of interpretation of the Community rules
on tariff classification.

Finally, the applicant claims that the contested classification is
in direct conflict with the Judgment of the European Court of
Justice in Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf v Hauptzollamt Augsburg
[1994] ECR I-1945.

(1) OJ L 256, p. 1