CELEX: C1998/258/25
Language: en
Date: 1998-08-15 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-157/98)

C 258/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.8.98
Ð By omitting to make any finding as regards the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     question whether consultation took place between the
     Directorate-General empowered to adopt a decision
     concerning classification and the Directorate-General           Ð Infringement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
     having power to assess the requirements of the service               (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of
     and whether, if such consultation took place, it was                 import or export duties (2), alternatively of Article
     conducted in a proper fashion, that is to say, by                    239(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
     omitting to verify whether or not the appointing                     establishing the Community Customs Code (the
     authority based its decision on incorrect or incomplete              CCC') (3): the Netherlands Government considers that,
     material facts, the Court of First Instance failed to                by applying to the present case the concept of special
     exercise its powers of judicial review in relation to acts           circumstances' within the meaning of Article 13(1) of
     of the appointing authority.                                         Regulation No 1430/79, the Commission has
                                                                          committed a manifest error of assessment. First, the
                                                                          Commission failed to take into account the fact that
Ð The proceedings before the Court of First Instance                      the external Community transit system does not
     were irregular: by informing the appellant that it                   function perfectly and is susceptible to fraud. Second,
     would not take into account the observations made                    the Commission omitted to take into consideration the
     with regard to the judgment in Case T-12/97                          fact that the process of discharging customs
     Barnett (2), which it had itself requested, the Court of             documentation is so time-consuming that, before it
     First Instance misled the appellant as to her legitimate             becomes apparent that fraud is involved, the customs
     expectations. By failing to take cognizance of the                   debt may have risen to a substantial level as a result of
     appellant's observations containing new pleas based                  successive transit operations. In consequence of the
     on matters of fact and law which had emerged in the                  system provided for by the CCC, it frequently happens
     course of the proceedings (consisting of the new case-               in cases of documentary fraud that it does not become
     law established by the Court of First Instance in its                apparent to the declarant that fraud is involved until
     judgment in Barnett), the Court of First Instance                    after 14 months have passed.
     wrongfully omitted to apply Article 48(1) and the first
     and second subparagraphs of Article 48(2) of the
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,              Ð Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
     whereas the appellant's case was precisely the type of               reasons: the contested decision is accompanied by, at
     dispute for which the legislature intended to provide                best, only a summary statement of reasons. The
     by adopting that provision. Similarly, the contested                 Commission has failed to state the extent to which, as
     order failed to apply the third subparagraph of                      a result of the defects in the operation of the external
     Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of              Community transit system and the impracticability of
     First Instance.                                                      checking within a reasonable time that customs
                                                                          formalities have been properly completed, or of
                                                                          adopting measures to limit the loss, liability for the
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Judgment of 5.11.1997, OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 17.                 whole or part of the customs debt cannot be imposed
                                                                          on the customs agent.
                                                                     (1) Decision of the Commission establishing that remission of
                                                                         import duties pursuant to Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 is not justified in a specific
                                                                         case.
Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the                (2) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                       (Case C-157/98)
                        (98/C 258/25)
                                                                     Appeal brought on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of
An action against the Commission of the European                     the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra             T-42/96 between Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the
and Corinna Wissels, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,             United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
The Hague, acting as Agents.                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            (Case C-163/98 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                              (98/C 258/26)
annul the decision of the Commission (1), communicated
to the Netherlands Government by notice of 19 February               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
1998, and order the Commission to pay the costs.                     1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance