CELEX: C1997/094/41
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by CPL Imperial 2 Spa against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/97)

22 . 3 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 94/19
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri               applicant to pay the outstanding duties. The defendant, in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 turn, adopted the contested decision pursuant to the
                          (Case T-10/97)                              procedure referred to in Article 5 (2 ) of Council
                                                                      Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
                           ( 97/C 94/40 )
                                                                      post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      which have not been required of the person liable for
                                                                      payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
An action against the Commission of the European                      involving the obligation to pay such duties (2 ).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                    The applicant first of all submits that no reasons
1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri, having its registered office in           whatsoever are given for the alleged invalidity of the
Naples (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the                EUR 1 certificates, in so far as the decision overlooks the
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               fact that the Norwegian Court of Cassation has set aside
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                   the decision imposing liability precisely on the issue of the
                                                                      origin of the goods, and has confirmed only that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           health-inspection certificates were invalid.
primarily:                                                            Second, the applicant considers that, by excluding the
                                                                      possibility that an error on the part of the customs
— declare the application admissible in as much as it                 authorities can ever affect the validity of the certificate of
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                 origin, in as much as the risk relating to such validity
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                 always falls to be borne by the importer, constituting, as it
                                                                      does, part of the commercial risk, the Commission is
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                         acting contrary to Article 220 (2 ) ( b ) of the Community
     8 October 1996 0 ),                                              Customs Code ( 3 ), which lays down the principle of good
                                                                      faith on the part of the person concerned . There is no
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all costs
                                                                      exception which excludes an error as to the validity of the
     associated with these proceedings;
                                                                      certificates of origin from the scope of that rule. The
in the alternative :                                                  interpretation which the Commission advocates would
                                                                      reduce the relevant errors to those of carelessness or
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect             calculation .
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post­
     clearance duties in question;                                    Third, the applicant also submits that Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
in the further alternative :                                          provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2913/92 (4 ) is invalid in so far as it confers
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                   unlimited power on the Commission to decide on post­
     decision should not be annulled, order the                       clearance entry in the accounts of uncollected duties,
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire             setting aside the right on which an importer is entitled to
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in                rely in the case where the conditions laid out in Article 220
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary        ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Customs Code obtain . In this connection,
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in           reliance is also placed on the principle of legitimate
     so far as it relates to interest payments .                      expectation and the general principle of fairness.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   (') Unpublished.
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJNoL 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
The applicant company, which trades in fish products,                 ( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
contests the defendant's decision finding that it is                        establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ No L 302,
necessary to effect post-clearance recovery of customs                      19 . 10 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
import duties in the amount of Lit 148 890 000 owing in               (4 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
respect of a number of operations in which cod from
Norway was imported through the customs office in
Verona . On presentation of EUR 1 movement certificates
issued by the relevant Norwegian exporting company, the
applicant took advantage, for those import transactions,
of the preferential customs treatment provided for under              Action brought on 17 January 1997 by CPL Imperial 2
Community legislation .                                               Spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                       Communities
The Norwegian customs authorities subsequently informed                                              ( Case T-ll/97)
the Italian authorities that, pursuant to independent                                                   97/C 94/41
investigations, they had ascertained that the Norwegian
exporter had not been in a position to establish that the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
fish used to produce the cod fillets had originated in
Norway. They accordingly contested the validity of the                An action against the Commission of the European
EUR 1 certificates on which the preferential tariff                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
treatment had been based. Proceeding on the basis of that             Instance of the European Communities on 17 January
notification, the customs office in Verona requested the               1997 by CPL Imperial 2 Spa, having its registered office
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 3 . 97
in Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          In support of her application, the applicant pleads
                                                                     infringement of Articles 31 ( 2 ) and 32 of the Staff
primarily:                                                           Regulations of officials, as well as a manifest error of
                                                                     assessment .
— declare the application admissible in as much as it
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                She maintains in that regard that she has, since 1981 ,
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                acquired exceptional professional experience in the fields
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                        of diplomacy, agricultural policy and environmental
     8 October 1996 (*),                                             policy, and that that experience has been recognized both
                                                                     by her previous employers and by her present assessor. It
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all the                is, moreover, an established fact, in her view, that she was
     costs associated with these proceedings;                        immediately able to perform her duties and that she has
                                                                     enabled her unit to make real progress in the field of
in the alternative :                                                 agricultural policy.
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect
                                                                     The applicant concludes from this that the Commission
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post­              has committed a manifest error of assessment, first, by
     clearance duties in question;                                   taking the view that neither her experience nor her
in the further alternative :                                         qualifications are sufficiently exceptional to justify her
                                                                     recruitment in a higher grade and, second, by considering
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                  that the post which she filled did not require the
     decision should not be annulled, order the                      recruitment of a particularly well-qualified official.
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in
     so far as it relates to Invoice No 7338F, which has
     already been settled, and in so far as it concerns              Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
     interest payments .                                                       against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                              ( Case T-14/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                ( 97/C 94/43 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those already relied on in Case T- 10/97 Unifrigo Gadus Sri                          (Language of the case: French)
v. Commission of the European Communities.                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Unpublished.
                                                                     Communities on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo, established
                                                                     at Conde sur Vire (France ), Sofivo Production, established
                                                                     at Brece ( France ), Sovinor, established at Conde sur Vire
                                                                     ( France ), Denkavit France, established at Montreuil-Bellay
                                                                     ( France ), Sobeval Viande, established at Périgueux
Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Anna Barnett                    ( France ), Serval, established at Sainte Eanne ( France ),
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Besnier Industrie, established at Bourgbarre ( France ),
                         (Case T-12/97)                              Sovida, established at Chateaubriand ( France ), Sica Ouest
                                                                     Elevage, established at Ploudaniel ( France ), Guinde,
                          ( 97/C 94/42 )                             established at Montauban de Bretagne ( France ),
                                                                     Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot ( France ),
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon (France ),
An action against the Commission of the European                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau ( France )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    and Collet et Compagnie, established at Chateaubourg
Instance of the European Communities on 20 January                   ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
1997 by Anna Barnett, residing in Brussels, represented by           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30               The applicants claim that the Court should:
rue de Cessange .
                                                                     — annul Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 adopted on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                          institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
— annul the decision of the appointing authority fixing                   the act being separable from its other provisions,
     at grade A 7 the applicant's classification in grade
     upon her recruitment,                                           — order the Council to pay the costs.