CELEX: C2002/044/42
Language: en
Date: 2002-02-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-299/01: Action brought on 27 November 2001 by Furness Intercontinental Services B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

16.2.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 44/23
Action brought on 27 November 2001 by Furness Inter-                     In support of its claim, the applicant pleads, first of all,
continental Services B.V. against the Commission of the                  violation of the right to a fair hearing, as well as infringement
                    European Communities                                 of Articles 906a and 907 of Regulation No 2454/93 and
                                                                         misunderstanding of the principle of legal certainty. In particu-
                                                                         lar, the applicant was not given access to all the documents on
                        (Case T-299/01)                                  the file. As a result, it was unable to express its comments on
                                                                         the matter in a similar way, and could not validly put forward
                                                                         its point of view in accordance with Article 906a of Regulation
                         (2002/C 44/42)                                  No 2454/93. In addition, the Commission’s decision was given
                                                                         out of time, inasmuch as the time-limit for adoption of the
                                                                         decision could not be extended pursuant to Article 907 of that
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         regulation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicant further pleads infringement of Article 905 et
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               seq. of Regulation No 2454/93 and the absence of a statement
European Communities on 27 November 2001 by Furness                      of reasons for the contested decision. According to the
Intercontinental Services B.V., established in Rotterdam, rep-           applicant, the Commission should have carried out an indepen-
resented by Johannes Wilhelmus Lambertus Maria ten Braak,                dent investigation into the question whether or not the Spanish
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               customs authorities were involved in the fraud. The applicant
                                                                         maintains that the possible involvement of customs officials in
                                                                         the fraud constitutes a special circumstance justifying the
                                                                         repayment of the customs duties.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul decision REM 12/00 of the Commission on the                  The applicant also pleads a misunderstanding of the facts on
      grounds stated, pursuant to Article 230 EC;                        the part of the Commission. Thus, the Commission failed to
                                                                         take any or any sufficient account of the fact that the
                                                                         competent authorities were already aware of the fraud even
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             before the transportation in question took place. Moreover,
                                                                         those authorities thereafter requested the applicant’s assistance
                                                                         in their investigation of that fraud. The applicant further states
                                                                         that the simple declaration by the Spanish authorities that false
                                                                         stamps were used in that fraud is not supported by sufficient
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          evidence. In addition, according to the applicant, the decision
                                                                         does not contain an adequate statement of reasons on those
                                                                         points.
The applicant operates as a customs agent, storing goods
under customs control on behalf of third parties and dealing
with customs declarations. In that connection, it drew up
declarations in respect of the external Community transit of             Lastly, the applicant claims that the Commission, in adopting
ethyl alcohol from the Netherlands to Morocco. On behalf of              the contested decision, misconstrued its own responsibility in
the same client, the applicant also drew up declarations in              the matter. According to the applicant, the Commission is
respect of other shipments under the external Community                  responsible for the proper functioning of the customs system.
transit procedure. It subsequently became apparent, however,             At the time of the shipments in question, it was not possible
that there had been irregularities in relation to those shipments.       for the applicant to avoid or trace the fraud, which was
The goods were not in fact delivered to their declared                   perpetrated by third parties, even by taking all possible
destination, and the Spanish customs authorities’ documents              precautionary measures.
relating to the clearance of the goods appeared to be forgeries.
The applicant states that it was not aware of this.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                             establishing the Community Customs Code.
The applicant was required to pay the import duties still due            (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
in that regard. The applicant subsequently applied to the                    repayment or remission of import or export duties.
Netherlands authorities for a refund of those import duties              (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
pursuant to Article 239(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1).               down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
The Netherlands authorities in turn submitted an application                 (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
in this regard to the European Commission pursuant to
Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (2) and Article 905
of Regulation No 2454/93 (3). That application was rejected
by the Commission in the contested decision.