CELEX: C2002/109/49
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-56/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden

4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/29
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                 was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
hof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case               Communities on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a Española
  of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden                       para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox), established in
                                                                        Madrid, Spain, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
                         (Case C-56/02)                                 Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers.
                        (2002/C 109/49)
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the contested judgment of the Court of First
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                          Instance of 13 December 2001 in case T-48/98; as well
(Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2002, received at the                   as
Court Registry on 22 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 21 January 1998
(Principal Customs Office) Weiden on the following question:
                                                                              fining the Appellant or at the very least substantially
                                                                              reduce the amount of the fine, or alternatively refer the
Is Article 187, second paragraph, of Council Regulation                       case back to the Court of First Instance;
(EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (OJ 1992
L 302, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where                   —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensating products that are declared as returned goods are
released for free circulation, the factual particulars required to
calculate the import duties legally owed on those compensating
products must also be declared and proved, or is it for the
endorsing customs office, so far as possible, to ascertain those        Pleas in law and main arguments
factual particulars from the supervising office using an INF 1
sheet, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 613 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council                The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community                  Instance is flawed for the following reasons:
Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), in the version in force
until 30 June 2001?
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance based its findings with regard
                                                                              to Acerinox’s participation in the alleged cartel in Spain
(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                                             on a manifestly erroneous construction of the Appellant’s
(2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.                                             pleadings and therefore failed to properly motivate its
                                                                              judgment on this point;
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance failed to adequately motivate
                                                                              its rejection of the Appellant’s argument that its
                                                                              implementation of the alloy surcharge outside Spain,
                                                                              which did not follow the pattern allegedly agreed in
Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a                              December 1993, reflected mere parallelism of conduct;
Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     —     the Court of First Instance has applied an erroneous legal
the European Communities in case T-48/98 between                              test in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement;
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A.
(Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                    —     even if an infringement could be said to continue for as
                                                                              long as its consequences are felt (rather than for as
                                                                              long as some concertation continues to exist between
                        (Case C-57/02 P)
                                                                              undertakings), the Court of First Instance failed to motiv-
                                                                              ate its rejection as irrelevant of the Appellant’s argument
                        (2002/C 109/50)                                       that, in July 1994, the price of nickel reached its original
                                                                              level;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December                 —     the Court of First Instance failed to properly motivate its
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                      rejection of the Appellant’s argument concerning the
of the European Communities in case T-48/98 (1) between                       disproportionate level of its fine when its position on the
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Aceri-              market is compared to that of other addressees of the
nox) and the Commission of the European Communities,                          decision;