Case T-218/07: Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Agroquivir v Council and Commission
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), aid system, common agricultural policy, cotton, farm income, support policy

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/35

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

The applicant claims that in the present case the requirements
demanded by case-law to establish the extra-contractual liability
of the Community are met.

Forms of order sought

— to uphold the present action for damages,

in accordance
with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to
be financially compensated by the Council and the Commis-
sion jointly and severally in the sum total of two hundred
and eighty-eight
thousand two hundred and thirty-eight
euros (EUR 288 238);

— to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003
establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93,
(EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC)
No 1868/94,
(EC)
No 1673/2000,
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001
(OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

(EC) No 1251/1999,

(EC) No 1254/1999,

schemes under

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct
support
common agricultural policy and
establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by
reason of
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus,
Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to
the European Union (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 48).

the accession of

the

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Agroquivir v Council
and Commission

a

the

result of

The applicant in the present proceedings, a Spanish firm which
gins raw cotton, seeks compensation for losses allegedly suffered
as
application, during the 2006/2007
marketing year, of Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC)
No 1782/2003 (1), inserted by Article 1(20) of Regulation (EC)
No 864/2004 (2). Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC)
No 1782/2003 establishes common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishes
certain support schemes for farmers.

(Case T-218/07)

(2007/C 211/68)

Language of the proceedings: Spanish

In that regard it is noted that Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1782/2003 was annulled by judgment of the
Court of Justice on 7 September 2006 in Case C-310/04 Spain
v Commission for breach of the principle of proportionality. That
judgment, however, suspended the effects of
the annulment
until the adoption of a new regulation, so that the provisions in
question continued to apply for the 2006/2007 marketing year.

On the basis of two reports carried out by an economic consul-
tancy the application reviews the loss suffered by the sector,
since, as a consequence of applying the annulled provisions
during the relevant marketing year a large drop occurred in the
raw cotton produced and, consequently in the
volume of
production of
the
industrially ginned cotton. Operation of
support scheme outlined in the relevant provisions results in a
significant portion of
(about 65 %) becoming
completely unrelated to the production of cotton, so that the
farmer continues to receive it, even though he is using his land
for the production of other crops. Accordingly, the estimated
profitability of using an area of one hectare to grow cotton
becomes lower than the profitability of using it to grow other
crops. That situation also meant that the operating revenues
obtained by the ginning industry were reduced.

the support

Parties

Applicant: Agroquivir, S. Coop. And. de Segundo Grado (Seville,
Spain) (represented by: Luis Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

Forms of order sought

in accordance
— to uphold the present action for damages,
with Article 288 EC, and declare that
is
entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and
the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of
two hundred and eighty-eight thousand two hundred and
thirty-eight euros (EUR 288 238);

the applicant

— to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

C 211/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put
forward in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.

Action brought on 25 June 2007 — DSV Road v
Commission

(Case T-219/07)

(2007/C 211/69)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: DSV ROAD N.V.
A. Calewaert and R. de Wit, lawyers)

(represented by: A. Poelmans,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside Decision C(2007) 1776 of the Commission of the
European Communities of 24 April 2007 in relation to the
application of
the Kingdom of Belgium (file reference
REC 05/02) determining that import duties in the amount
of EUR 168 004,65 forming the subject-matter of the appli-
cation of the Kingdom of Belgium of 12 August 2002 must
be recovered and that there are no grounds for remission of
those import duties;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

In the contested decision the Commission ruled that
the
resulting customs debt had to be the subject of post-clearance
recovery.

The applicant first submits that the Commission should have
ruled that the outstanding duties did not have to be the subject
of post-clearance recovery, in accordance with Article 220(2)(b)
of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2). The applicant submits that
the issue of the form A certificates was attributable to a mistake
on the part of the Thai authorities and that there is no indica-
tion whatsoever that the exporters incorrectly set out the facts.
Moreover, the applicant contends, there was a mistake inasmuch
as the Thai authorities knew, or ought to have known, that the
goods in question were not eligible for preferential tariff treat-
ment.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission ought to
have remitted the duties in accordance with Article 239 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the ground of special circum-
stances.

(1) 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).

(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 29 June 2007 — Thomson Sales Europe
v Commission

(Case T-225/07)

(2007/C 211/70)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicant imported diskettes from Thailand. Those diskettes
were covered by a preferential rule under the scheme of general
tariff preferences on condition that
importation was
covered by a form A certificate of origin issued by the compe-
tent Thai authorities in accordance with Article 80 of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1).

their

On the occasion of each customs declaration the applicant
submitted a form A issued by the Thai authorities, following
which the Belgian authorities accorded preferential tariff treat-
ment.

However, a number of the certificates issued by the Thai autho-
rities were declared to be invalid, with the result that the goods
concerned were not eligible for preferential
treatment
when imported into the EU.

tariff

Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)
(represented by: F.Goguel and F. Foucault, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Before ruling, order disclosure to the parties all of the mate-
rials, documents,
letters, preparatory works etc
which led to the two Regulations No 2376/94 and
No 710/95;

reports,

— Principally, annul

the decision of

the Commission REM

No 03/05 of 7 May 2007.