Case T-125/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs territory (EU), equal treatment, import (EU), import licence, interest, powers of the institutions (EU), right to justice, tropical fruit








C_2016175EN.01002801.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/28





Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
(Case T-125/16)
(2016/C 175/32)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Decision C(2016) 95 final of the European Commission of 20 January 2016 concerning Case REC 07/07(REV) finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010)2858 of 6 May 2010;










—


declare that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 (1) has fully taken effect in favour of the present applicant following the Court’s judgment in Case T-324/10, in which the Court annulled, in favour of the (present and former) applicant, Article 1(3) of the initial Decision C(2010)2858, with the result that the present applicant, in accordance with Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93, enjoys full remission of the customs debt, as well as of all interest or costs linked directly or indirectly to that debt;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The applicant submits that the legal effects of the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136) in favour of the present applicant are, in themselves, sufficient. Consequently, no new Commission decision is required to vitiate the illegality found by the Court and the applicant must benefit from the operation of Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The applicant argues that the Commission misused its power to request additional information on the basis of Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93 in order to circumvent the application of Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93. More specifically, the applicant argues that the Commission already had the requested information in its possession.










3.


Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration in so far the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136) ought to have been given effect to within a reasonable period which could not exceed the original nine-month period prescribed by Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93.










4.


Fourth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging misuse of powers by reason of the Commission’s conduct of an entirely new investigation in which it reached a conclusion that is at variance with the findings made by the Court in the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136).










5.


Fifth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging an incorrect interpretation of the regulatory framework governing the organisation of the banana market and infringement of the principle of equality.






—


The applicant’s use of a lease deal in order to acquire the use of import licences was, in its opinion, statutorily possible in view of Regulation No 2362/98 (2) and of the standard commercial practices recognised by the WTO.










—


This cannot be regarded as negligence on the part of an importer when that is not the case for the customs agent or for another importer that used non-transferable licences.










(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)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).