Case T-225/07: Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Thomson Sales Europe v Commission
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, Thailand, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, television equipment

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.

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of
Commission Decision No REM 03/05 of 7 May 2007 holding
that the remission of import duties is not justified in the par-
ticular case of the applicant. That decision was issued following
the application made to the Commission by the French national
authorities, who had claimed from the applicant payment of
anti-dumping duties on importation of colour television recei-
vers manufactured in Thailand by its subsidiary there, and on
which the subsidiary had applied for remission on the basis of
Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code. (1)

The applicant considers that it is entitled to the remission on
the basis of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, since,
in its opinion, it satisfies the two conditions laid down in that
provision.

As regards the first condition (the existence of a special situa-
tion), the applicant claims that its situation is certainly special
and is the result of, first, the conduct of the Commission which
changed its approach to interpretation of the legal provisions on
the origin of goods without having properly informed traders,
the national authorities who
and, second,
followed the approach adopted by the Commission.

the conduct of

As regards the second condition referred to in Article 239 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (no deception or negligence), the
applicant claims that it cannot be considered to have been negli-
gent since it trusted in the validity of the initial position of the
Commission's services, who,
in the opinion of the applicant,
decided not to employ in its case a strict application of the rules
of origin but to apply to it the special anti-dumping duties on
all the receivers manufactured and exported by its Thailand
subsidiary.

(1) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Form of order sought

— annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 18 April

2007 in Case R 1611/2006-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to
enter trade mark application No 4 839 916 ‘PRANAHAUS’
in the Register of Community trade marks and

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRANAHAUS’
for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 35 (application
No 4 839 916)

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no absolute ground for refusal
of registration of the trade mark applied for.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 20 June 2007 — Prana Haus v OHIM
(PRANAHAUS)

(Case T-226/07)

(2007/C 211/71)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 28 June 2007 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-227/07)

(2007/C 211/72)

Language of the proceedings: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Applicant: Prana Haus (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by N.
Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities