CELEX: C2002/044/34
Language: en
Date: 2002-02-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-283/01: Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission of the European Communities

16.2.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/17
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                  The applicant argues that the remission application should be
                                                                          granted, not least because the Commission did not give a
2.    The costs are reserved.                                             decision within the nine-month time-limit prescribed by
                                                                          Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code.
                                                                          The applicant further claims that it has been the victim of
                                                                          organised crime and that the theft of the lorry occurred in
                                                                          ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 239 of
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
                                                                          (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Action brought on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans AG
                                                                              down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                              (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
                          (Case T-282/01)                                 (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                              establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                           (2002/C 44/33)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans
AG, established at Rickenbach bei Wil (Switzerland), represent-           Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización
ed by J. Weigell, lawyer.                                                 de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Com-
                                                                                      mission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case T-283/01)
—     annul the Commission’s decision (REM 19/00) of 18 July
      2001 finding the remission of import duty by the Federal                                      (2002/C 44/34)
      Republic of Germany to the applicant to be unjustified,
      and authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant
      to Article 908(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), to                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      remit to the applicant, in accordance with its application
      of 28 May 1998, duty already paid in the sum of
      DEM 395 392,01;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 November 2001 by Organiza-
                                                                          ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                          office is at Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Garcia-Gallardo and Javier Guillén Carrau, lawyers.
In May 1997 the applicant despatched, at a principal customs
office in Belgium, 12 110 000 cigarettes under the external               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community transit procedure for transportation from
Antwerp to Montenegro, the customs office of destination
                                                                          —     declare the present application admissible;
being in Austria. During a stop at a motorway rest area, the
lorry and the consignment which it was carrying were
stolen; the lorry driver reported the theft immediately at the            —     annul the act which is the subject of the present
competent police headquarters.                                                  application, by which the European Commission has
                                                                                reduced the quantities eligible for compensatory allow-
                                                                                ance in respect of OPTUC, namely, Article 2(2) of and the
The parties are in dispute concerning the question whether, on                  annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2001 of
the facts, the defendant is obliged, pursuant to Article 239 of                 20 August 2001 providing for compensation to producer
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), to authorise the Federal                       organisations for tuna delivered to the processing industry
Republic of Germany to remit the customs duties already paid.                   between 1 October and 31 December 2000 (1);
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
—     order any other measure which the Court may deem                   —     in the alternative, declare the decision in question void in
      appropriate requiring the Commission to fulfil its obli-                 its entirety;
      gations under Article 233 EC and, more specifically,
      requiring the Commission to reexamine the situation;
                                                                         —     annul the applicant’s commitment as set out in para-
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                      graph 72 of the decision;
      pay all the costs.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a Spanish organisation of producers of frozen
tunny which has previously challenged before the Court of                Pleas in law and main arguments
First Instance a number of Commission regulations providing
for compensatory allowances granted to producer organis-
ations for the tuna supplied to the Community processing
industry in the quarters between 1 July 1999 and 30 September            Since 1991 the applicant has operated what is currently the
2000 (2), challenges in the present case the regulation relating         only system covering the whole of Germany for the collection
to the period between 1 October and 31 December 2000.                    and recovery of used sales packaging bearing its trade mark
                                                                         ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ (‘Green Dot’). The applicant organises
                                                                         regular collections of packaging from nearly all private house-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 holds in Germany. The applicant grants domestic and foreign
advanced in Case T-142/01 (3).                                           manufacturers and/or distributors the right to mark sales
                                                                         packaging covered by the applicant’s exemption system under
(1) OJ 2001 L 224, p. 4.
                                                                         the terms of a uniform agreement on use of the mark.
(2) Case T-142/01.
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.
                                                                         In September 1992 the applicant notified the Commission of
                                                                         its statutes and a sample of the agreements underlying the
                                                                         system. In January 1996, at the request of the defendant, the
                                                                         applicant gave the commitment on joint use set out in
                                                                         paragraph 71 of the contested decision and subject to various
                                                                         restrictions. In March 1997 the Commission announced its
Action brought on 27 November 2001 by Der Grüne                          intention to take a favourable view of all the agreements
Punkt — Duales System Deutschland Aktiengesellschaft                     notified pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 (1).
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-289/01)
                                                                         By decision of 20 April 2001 the Commission required the
                                                                         applicant also to allow the use of the ‘Green Dot’ mark for
                          (2002/C 44/35)                                 packaging which is not part of the applicant’s system but part
                                                                         of that of a competitor and is intended for disposal by that
                   (Language of the case: German)                        competitor. The applicant brought an action against that
                                                                         decision before the Court of First Instance (2).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               In June 2001 the defendant informed the applicant that it
European Communities on 27 November 2001 by Der Grüne                    intended to attach conditions to the the decision on exemption.
Punkt — Duales System Deutschland Aktiengesellschaft, Co-                According to the applicant those conditions go far beyond the
logne (Germany), represented by W. Deselaers, B. Meyring and             commitment given by the applicant. On 17 September 2001
E. Wagner, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    the defendant finally issued the contested decision on exemp-
                                                                         tion subject to two such conditions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare Article 3(a) and (b) of the Decision of the                The applicant seeks the annulment of Article 3(a) and (b) of
      defendant of 17 September 2001 (C(2001) 2672 final)                that decision and submits that the conditions imposed in it
      relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty         prejudice its legal position as it is forced to accept the use of
      and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement void;                          its collection and sorting facilities by competitors.