CELEX: C1996/158/38
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 April 1996 by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-49/96)

1 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 158/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           detectability' as provided for in Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 1697/79 and/or Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 .
The applicant explains that it is a company engaged in the
sourcing, distribution and marketing of manufactured                  5 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
apparel . Among other things , it is an importer of rainwear              assessment and/or interpretation in relation to the
manufactured from a combination of plastic and textile                    concept of 'obvious negligence ' as provided for in
materials . Between 19 May 1992 and 25 May 1994, the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 , as amended by
applicant imported a number of consignments of the said                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 3069/86 and Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 2913/92 .
rainwear, declaring them to fall within heading 3926 of the
combined nomenclature, which attracted a zero rate of
import duty under the Generalized System of Preferences               6 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
( GSP ). This tariff classification had been accepted on several          assessment in that it has applied two different legislative
occasions by the Irish Customs Service, both by the section               regimes in assessing the case transmitted to it by the Irish
responsible for GSP matters and by the customs import                     Customs Authorities . One of the legislative regimes is
officer dealing with the case, who had even inspected the                 out of date . The legislative regimes have differences in
goods to check that they had been classified correctly . The              points of substance and cannot be applied concurrently.
applicant underlines that the physical examination of the                 The Commission has failed to distinguish between the
goods and the acceptance of its customs declaration further               regimes .
supported it in its view that the correct tariff heading was
3926 . However, after further inspection, the Tariff
Classification Unit determined in November 1993 that the
goods were properly classified under heading 6210 . The
applicant points out that it has accepted that determination
and used it on all subsequent declarations in respect of the
same goods .
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 1996 by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                      Lunghi against the Commission of the European
The case was sent to the Commission by the Irish Customs                                        Communities
Authorities on 26 April 1995 . In due course, the                                            ( Case T-49/96 )
Commission consulted a group of experts within the
framework of the Committee provided for in Article 247 of                                      ( 96/C 158/38 )
the Customs Code . On 3 November 1995 , the Commission
took a decision finding that it was justified to take action for                     (Language of the case: French)
the post-clearance recovery of the import duties in question
and that the remission of these duties was not justified ( the
contested decision ).                                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1996 by
The action is based on the following pleas in law:                    Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, residing in Brussels,
                                                                      represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Jacques
1 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
      Regulations in that it was taken outside the six month          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
      time period provided for. This time period is mandatory         Rheinsheim .
      and provides for no exceptions or derogations .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
2.    The Decision was taken in breach of a fundamental
      principle of Community law: the principle of Audi               — declare that the compensation proposed by the
      alteram partem was infringed in that the applicant                  Commission is inadequate to satisfy the applicant's
      was not permitted to express its views effectively in               rights, and order the Commission to pay the damages
      proceedings which have involved unfavourable                        particularized by the defendant in her complaint of
      consequences for it .                                               11 September 1995 ;
3 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      Regulations and/or in breach of an essential procedural
      requirement in that the relevant Regulations require the        Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission to consult with a group of experts
      composed of all Member States . The applicant believes
      that several Member States were not represented in the          The applicant, an official retired on medical grounds,
      committee .                                                     contests the decision of the Commission limiting to
                                                                      Bfr 150 000 the compensation for the material and
                                                                      non-material damage suffered by her as a result of the
4 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error                disappearance of her personal belongings, which was caused
      of assessment in relation to the concept of 'reasonable         by a service-related fault .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 158 / 16        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
The applicant points out in that regard that, having been           The applicant claims that the Court should:
denied access to the Commission's premises , apart from the
buildings accommodating the medical service and the                 — annul       the  decision    of   the Selection   Board      for
departments dealing with social matters, she was                        Competition COM/T/C/96 not to admit the applicant to
subsequently requested to attend in her office in order to              the competition tests,
collect her personal belongings . However, after an
appointment had been fixed for that purpose, it became              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
apparent that all of her personal belongings had
disappeared .                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant points out not only that there has                    The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in grade C 5 ,
self-evidently been fault on the part of the administration         contests the decision rejecting her application to take part
but also that she has clearly suffered actual loss, and             in Competition COM/T/C/96 on the ground that she
criticizes the Commission's offer as manifestly                     allegedly did not satisfy the length of service requirement of
inadequate .                                                        completion of three years' continuous service with the
                                                                    European Communities as a member of the temporary
                                                                    staff.
                                                                    The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Véronique Kohn-Bergé             support of her application :
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    — infringement of the right of members of the temporary
                      ( Case T-55 /96 )                                 staff to take part in internal competitions, and of the first
                        ( 96/C 158 /39 )                                paragraph of Article 27 and Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations, in so far as the requirement concerning
               (Language of the case: French)                           length of continuous service may lead to the elimination
                                                                        of candidates with qualifications which are the same as,
An action against the Commission of the European                        or better than , those possessed by other candidates who
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       are admitted to the tests,
Instance of the European Communities on 1 7 April 1 996 by
Véronique Kohn-Bergé, residing at Florange ( France ),              — a manifest error of assessment in that it is clear that the
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                   applicant has in fact been in the service of the
Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Commission since 16 October 1991 and , consequently,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciare Myson                 had demonstrably acquired three years ' seniority by
SARL , 1 Rue Glesener .                                                 29 September 1995 .