CELEX: C2000/372/28
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-327/00: Action brought on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

C 372/14              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.12.2000
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food SpA                        The authorities in question in fact endorsed the validity of the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      ATR 1 certificates issued, proving that they were not misled
                                                                          by declarations made by the exporting companies. The main
                                                                          argument put forward by the Commission that in the present
                        (Case T-327/00)                                   case there was no ‘inward-processing’ error on the part of the
                                                                          authorities thus fails.
                        (2000/C 372/28)
                                                                          The question as to whether the other two conditions laid down
                                                                          in Article 222 were fulfilled was contested by the Commission
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        only indirectly.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 So far as concerns the alleged error of interpretation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                rule against intermingling, the applicant claims that the
European Communities on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food                      Commission’s certainty that mingling of Turkish and Com-
SpA, represented by Roberto Delfino, of the Genoa Bar,                    munity goods was prohibited caused the Community inspec-
Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, Flora Santaniello, of the                tors to fail to calculate the proportion of raw material
Lecce Bar, Daniele P. Domenicucci, of the Pescara Bar, with an            originating in third countries and to verify to what extent, if
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain                any, it exceeded the tolerance level (10 %) provided for by the
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I                                                   Decision of the EEC-Turkey Association Council.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000)1612 of 19 June
      2000 rejecting the request not to proceed with the
      post-clearance recovery, under Article 220(2)(b) of the
      Community Customs Code, of import duties in respect
      of three consignments of tuna from Turkey covered by                Action brought on 24 October 2000 by Mario Costacurta
      IM4 documents No 548/P of 8 September 1995,                           against the Commission of the European Communities
      No 866/E of 9 January 1996, and No 2656/H of
      24 January 1996;
                                                                                                  (Case T-328/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 372/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The present case concerns the challenge by the Community
authorities of the ATR 1 certificates issued by Turkey in respect         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the release into free circulation, by customs at Genoa, of             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
three consignments of tinned tuna purchased from the Turkish              European Communities on 24 October 2000 by Mario
undertaking Kervitas. The Community authorities argued that               Costacurta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit,
most of the raw material used in the manufacture of the                   of the Luxembourg Bar.
exported products was not of exclusively Turkish origin and
that the undertakings involved had not physically separated               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the raw material of Turkish origin from the rest.
                                                                          —    annul the implied rejection of the Commission of the
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of                European Communities of his request of 6 June 2000;
Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code, breach of
the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to                 —    order that the applicant be re-assigned to a third country
provide a statement of reasons as provided for in Article 253                  with effect from 1 September 2000, pursuant to Article 3
of the EC Treaty.                                                              of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
So far as concerns Article 220 of the abovementioned Code,                —    order the Commission of the European Communities to
the applicant claims that, assuming that the post-clearance                    pay all the costs of the proceedings;
recovery of the duties was well-founded (which is at the very
least doubtful) and that the Turkish authorities had committed            —    reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas and
an error when issuing the certificate of origin, such an error                 actions, in particular with regard to compensation for
should be characterised as an ‘inward-processing error’.                       damage.