CELEX: C1998/007/70
Language: en
Date: 1998-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Mehibas Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-290/97)

10. 1. 98            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/27
Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Mehibas                      Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf                  reasons and the principle of proportionality.
Codirex BV) against the Commission of the European
                        Communities                                (1) The Decision concerns the application of Article 13 of Council
                       (Case T-290/97)                                 Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                       repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ L 175,
                         (98/C 7/70)                                   12. 7. 1979, p. 1).
                                                                   (2) OJ C 137, 3. 6. 1995, p. 34.
                                                                   (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                          laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community
                                                                       Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
1997 by Mehibas Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en
Controlebedrijf Codirex BV), Rotterdam, represented by
P. V. F. Bos and N. J. Helder, of the Rotterdam Bar, with          Action brought on 12 November 1997 by Robert Mehlen
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            and Others against the Council of the European Union
M. Loesch, 11, rue Goethe.                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                           (Case T-291/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                             (98/C 7/71)
Ð annul the Commission's Decision (C(97)2331 final) of                             (Language of the case: French)
    22 July 1997 (1), addressed to the Netherlands,
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 12 November 1997 by Robert Mehlen
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                and the other applicants whose names are listed in the
                                                                   annex, represented by Fernand Entringer, of the
                                                                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
The present case is a continuation of Case T-89/95 (2), in         Luxembourg at his Chambers, 34A, rue Philippe II.
which the applicant contested the earlier refusal by the
Commission to decide that the same agricultural levies as
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
those in issue in the present case should be repaid.
                                                                   Ð declare that there has been wrongful conduct on the
After the Commission had withdrawn the decision at                      part of the Commission and the Council; that their
issue, the case was removed from the register of the Court              wrongful conduct gives rise to the Union's non-
of First Instance.                                                      contractual liability; that damage has been suffered by
                                                                        the applicants as a result of the wrongful conduct; that
                                                                        the Union is required to compensate them for that
The applicant advances the following pleas against the                  damage,
decision contested in the present case:
                                                                   Ð take formal note of the fact that the applicants
Ð lack of competence on the part of the Commission, in                  estimate the damage at Lfrs 3 000 000, without
    that it allowed the mandatory time limit prescribed by              prejudice to any calculation made specifically in
    the second sentence of Article 907 of Regulation                    regard to each undertaking,
    (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) to elapse by failing in good time
    to adopt a decision on the first application for               Ð order the Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.
    remission,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the
    protection of legitimate expectations, in that the             The applicants are seeking compensation for the damage
    applicant could not have known that its application            which they allege to have suffered as a result of acts and
    for remission had not caused time to start running,            omissions by the Council and the Commission when
                                                                   Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Mad Cow
Ð infringement of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)                   Disease', appeared.
    No 1430/79, in that the Commission failed to take
    into account the different time limits applying under          On the basis of a report published on 7 February 1997 by
    Netherlands law to supplementary applications for              the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE, constituted
    reimbursement of import duties and agricultural levies,        by the European Parliament, the applicants consider that