CELEX: C2000/079/78
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-353/99: Action brought on 10 December 1999 by NV Calberson Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

C 79/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Bogoljub Karic,                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dragomir Karic, Milenka Karic, Sreten Karic and Zoran
     Karic against the Council of the European Union                     — annul the Commission’s decision of 9 February 1999
                                                                             considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to 17 Decemb-
                        (Case T-350/99)                                      er 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised
                                                                             and deducting them from annual leave entitlement;
                         (2000/C 79/76)                                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  The applicant contests the legality of the decision to consider
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               her absences because of sickness to have been unauthorised
Communities on 8 December 1999 by Bogoljub Karic and                     and to deduct them from annual leave entitlement. The
four others, represented by Nicolas Rollason and Tim Eicke,              applicant takes the view that by not enabling her to challenge
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             effectively the institution’s medical officer’s refusal to accept
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill.                     the medical certificate produced to justify her absences because
                                                                         of sickness, the Commission infringed Article 59(1) and (3) of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              the Staff Regulations, as well as her rights of defence and the
                                                                         obligation to state reasons. She maintains, furthermore, that
— declare void the Council Decision 1999/612/CFSP and/or                 the medical officer committed a manifest error of assessment
    the decision apparently adopted on 6 December 1999, not              by refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of her medical
    yet published in the Official Journal but press-released on          complaint.
    the Council’s website on 6 December 1999;
— order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants             Action brought on 10 December 1999 by NV Calberson
are similar to those put forward in Case T-349/99. Moreover,             Belgium against the Commission of the European Com-
the applicants submit that the contested decisions prevent                                            munities
them from exercising their right to family life as protected by
Article 8(1) ECHR and Article 6(2) EU.                                                            (Case T-353/99)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 79/78)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
Action brought on 9 December 1999 by M against Com-                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            mission of the European Communities                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 December 1999 by NV Calber-
                                                                         son Belgium, having its registered office in Bornem (Belgium),
                        (Case T-352/99)                                  represented by L. Gheysens, of the Law Firm Gheysens &
                                                                         Partners, Wevelgem (Belgium), with an address for service in
                         (2000/C 79/77)                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Reding, 2 Rue J.-P.
                                                                         Brasseur.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                — annul Commission Decision C(1999) 2140 final of 19 July
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   1999 (file Rec 8/98 — client: Lema) and Commission
European Communities on 9 December 1999 by M, represent-                     Decision C(1999) 2143 final of 19 July 1999 (file Rec
ed by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and                        9/98 — client: Consumer Electronic Service);
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion               — declare that [the import duties in issue] should not be the
Fiduciaire, 2-4 rue Beck.                                                    subject of post-clearance recovery from the applicant;
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/37
— in the alternative, declare that, in both the Lema and               Action brought on 13 December 1999 by Société Vatinel
     Consumer Electronic Service cases, the applicant is entitled        NV against Commission of the European Communities
     to remission of the duties in respect of which post-
     clearance recovery is sought;
                                                                                               (Case T-355/99)
— order the Commission to pay all costs.                                                        (2000/C 79/79)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In 1993, pursuant to ATR-1 certificates issued by the Turkish          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
authorities, the applicant imported a consignment of colour            European Communities on 13 December 1999 by Société
televisions from Turkey exempt from import duties. During              Vatinel NV, whose registered office is in Antwerp (Belgium),
an investigation in Turkey in 1993, the Commission’s services          represented by Mireille Famchon, of the Paris Bar, with an
established that the conditions for exemption had not been             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of François
satisfied inasmuch as countervailing duties had not been levied        Prum, 13 Avenue Guillaume.
in Turkey on the components of the television sets which had
originated in third countries.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul Decision No C(1999)2286 final of 22 July 1999.
In the contested decisions the Commission rejected the
requests by the Belgian authorities not to seek post-clearance
recovery in this case of the import duties owed, or in the
alternative to remit those duties. The Commission took the             Pleas in law and main arguments
view that a prudent importer ought to have had serious doubts
as to the validity of those ATR-1 certificates.                        The applicant company in the present case contests the
                                                                       Commission’s decision that post-clearance recovery should be
                                                                       made of import duties which the applicant was not required
According to the applicant, the Turkish authorities had in this        to pay in respect of television sets imported from Turkey and
case made an ‘active error’ which the applicant itself could not       that the remission of those duties was not justified in a specific
possibly have discovered. In its view therefore, this is an error      case.
within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79,
in which case the duties cannot be the subject of post-clearance
recovery, or, alternatively, a special circumstance in which,          In support of its arguments, it claims that:
pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 13 of Regulation
No 1430/79, remission is granted. The fact that the Com-               — the right to a fair hearing and rights of the defence were
mission failed to detect these irregularities at an earlier stage          infringed, inasmuch as it had not received, to date, as
and failed to warn the undertakings concerned also points to               requested, the results of the investigation undertaken by
maladministration.                                                         the Commission in Turkey into the validity of the ATR1
                                                                           certificates submitted in support of the declarations in
                                                                           respect of the importation of television set from that
The applicant further argues that its rights of defence, in                country.
particular the principle of ‘equality of arms’, have not been
respected. The investigation in Turkey was conducted in a              — the disputed ATR certificates were not invalidated by the
one-sided manner, without the knowledge of the parties                     competent authorities of the issuing country, which is why
concerned and without any opportunity for them to reply.                   the Belgian customs authorities were not in a position to
                                                                           challenge the applicability of the ATR1 certificates at issue.
The applicant also submits that there is no longer any right to        — the Turkish authorities failed to bring their national
make post-clearance recovery, in accordance with Article 2 of              legislation into line with the decision of the Council of
Regulation No 1697/79.                                                     Association which required a countervailing export duty
                                                                           to be levied. Moreover, after being warned on several
                                                                           occasions by the Commission, the Turkish authorities
                                                                           cannot claim to have been unaware of the irregularity
The applicant concludes by referring to the pleas in law and
                                                                           under which it laboured.
arguments which it put forward in Case T-216/97.
                                                                       — contrary to what the Commission contends, the Turkish
                                                                           authorities were at no time taken advantage of by the
                                                                           exporters. Although third-country parts were used in
                                                                           the manufacture of television sets in Turkey, they were