CELEX: C2001/259/05
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-15 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from Turkey — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol — Compensatory levy — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Remission of import duty not justified — Rights of the defence)

15.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/5
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                         and Northern Ireland, (Agents: in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97,
                         of 10 May 2001                                  T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-279/97,
                                                                         T-280/97 and T-293/97, M. Ewing, R.V. Magrill and D. Wyatt
                                                                         QC, and, in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97, D. Cooper and
in Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97,                D. Wyatt) Federal Republic of Germany, in Cases T-186/97,
T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97,                      T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, (Agents: initially
T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG and                         E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski and subsequently W.D. Plessing
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    and C.-D. Quassowski), French Republic, in Cases T-186/97,
                                                                         T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97 and T-210/97, T-211/97
                                                                         and T-216/97 to T-218/97, (Agents: initially K. Rispal-
(Action for annulment — Importation of television sets                   Bellanger, G. Mignot and F. Pascal and subsequently K. Rispal-
from Turkey — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement —                         Bellanger and C. Vasak), against Commission of the European
Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol — Compensatory levy              Communities (Agents: in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97
— Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 —                         to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97 and T-293/97 initially
Remission of import duty not justified — Rights of the                   R.B. Wainwright and K. Schreyer and subsequently G. zur
                              defence)                                   Hausen, in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97 initially M. Nolin and
                                                                         A. Barav and subsequently R. Tricot and A. Barav, in Cases
                                                                         T-279/97 and T-280/97 R.B. Wainwright and R. Tricot, and
                                                                         in Case T-147/99 R. Tricot, and J. Stuyck), — application in
                         (2001/C 259/05)                                 Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97,
                                                                         T-211/97, T-279/97, T-280/97 and T-293/97 for annulment
                                                                         of the decisions of the Commission of 19 February, 25 March
                                                                         and 5 June 1997 finding that the remission of import duties is
     (Language of the case: German, English, French and Dutch)           not justified, and in Cases T-216/97 to T-218/97 and T-147/99
                                                                         for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 24 April
                                                                         1997 and 26 March 1999 finding that import duties must be
In Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97,                recovered and that the remission of those duties is not justified
T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97,                      — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99, Kaufring AG, established                K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; P. de
in Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,          Bandt, Legal secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Crown                on 10 May 2001, in which it:
Europe GmbH, established in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, rep-
resented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, Profex Electronic Verwaltungsge-
sellschaft mbH, established in Tiefenbach, Germany, represent-
                                                                         1.   Annuls Decisions REM 14/96, REM 15/96, REM 16/96,
ed initially by G. Sobotta and subsequently by E.O. Rau,
                                                                              REM 17/96, REM 18/96, REM 19/96 and REM 20/96 of
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Horten
                                                                              19 February 1997 and Decision REM 21/96 of 25 March
AG, established in Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by D. Ehle
                                                                              1997 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
and V. Schiller, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                              applications for the remission of import duties.
Luxembourg, Dr. Seufert GmbH, established in Karlsruhe,
Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, Grundig AG, established
in Fürth, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Hertie               2.   Annuls Decisions REC 7/96, REC 8/96 and REC 9/96 of
Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH, established in Frankfurt am                         24 April 1997 addressed to the French Republic concerning
Main, Germany, represented by D. Ehle and V. Schiller,                        applications for non-recovery and remission of import duties.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Lema SA,
established in Gennevilliers, France, represented by F. Goguel,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Masco SA,
formerly Seiga SA (High Tech Industries), established in Thiais,
                                                                         3.   Annuls Decisions REM 26/96 and REM 27/96 of 5 June
France, represented by F. Goguel, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                              1996 addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning
service in Luxembourg, DFDS Transport BV, established in
                                                                              applications for remission of import duties.
Venlo, Netherlands, represented by C. Grisart, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, Wilson Holland BV,
established in Hoogvliet Rotterdam, Netherlands, represented
by C. Grisart, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, Elta GmbH, established in Dreieich-Sprendlingen, Ger-             4.   Annuls Decision REC 3/98 of 26 March 1999 addressed to
many, represented by G. Breit and A. Breit, lawyers, Miller NV,               the Kingdom of Belgium concerning an application for non-
established in Willebroek, Belgium, represented by Y. Van                     recovery and remission.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            15.9.2001
5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                    —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
6.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                    —     the parties shall bear their own costs, including those
      Ireland, the French Republic and the Federal Republic of                         relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
      Germany to bear their own costs.
                                                                           3.    In Case T-241/99:
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97, C 378 of 20.12.97, C 94 of 28.3.98 and
    C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                            —     the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant
                                                                                       EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material
                                                                                       damage;
                                                                                 —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                 —     the Commission shall, in addition to bearing its own
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                            costs, pay one-quarter of the applicant’s costs.
                            of 3 July 2001
                                                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98 and C 6 of 8.1.98.
in Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99: E v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Temporary agent — Disciplinary action —
Suspension — Disciplinary measure — Termination without
notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third
paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment
             and damages — No need to adjudicate)                                                     of 16 May 2001
                           (2001/C 259/06)                                 in Case T-68/99 Toditec NV v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                                  pean Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                                       Counterclaim)
In Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98: E, temporary member
of staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in T.I. (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmen-                                  (2001/C 259/07)
tier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application, in                                    (Language of the case: English)
Case T-24/98, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 12 November 1997 to continue to keep the
applicant on suspension from duties and, secondly, seeking an              In Case T-68/99 Toditec NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium),
order requiring the Community to make good the damage                      represented by E. Ballon and H. Dubois, avocats, with an
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision           address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
and, in Case T-241/99, an application, first, for annulment of             European Communities (Agents: E. de March, M. Shotter and
the decision of the Commission of 22 December 1998                         J. Stuyck) — application pursuant to an arbitration clause
imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of termin-              within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now
ation without notice of the temporary-agent contract and,                  Article 238 EC) for the Commission to be required to pay the
secondly, seeking an order requiring the Community to make                 sum of ECU 74 967, plus interest at the rate of 7 % (the legal
good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result            rate applicable in Belgium) as from 5 June 1998, and
of that decision and of the disciplinary procedure — the Court             counterclaim by the Commission for the applicant to be
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,               required to pay it the sum of EUR 54 486, plus interest at the
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,          rate of 7 % as from 31 January 1999 — the Court of First
gave a judgment on 13 July 2001, the operative part of which               Instance, composed of (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio
is as follows:                                                             González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                           ment on 16 May 2001, in which it:
1.    Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99 are joined for the purposes of
      the judgment.                                                        1.    Allows the applicant’s claim in so far as it seeks reimbursement
                                                                                 of expenditure on consumables amounting to EUR 4 642.
2.    In Case T-24/98:
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.
      —     there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for
            annulment;                                                     3.    Allows the Commission’s counterclaim.