CELEX: C1996/158/37
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 February 1996 by J. Langdon Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-22/96)

No C 158 / 14        EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
 Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                                of 21 March 1996
 of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission
 of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves             in Case T-161/95 : Lino Liao v. Council of the European
 Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for annulment,                                      Union (')
 first, of the decision adopted by the defendant on                  (Officials — Action for annulment of a staff report — Act
 24 November 1993 ( i ) withdrawing the household                   adversely affecting an official — Preparatory act — Action
 allowance and the allowance for a person treated as a                              for damages — Inadmissible)
 dependent child and ( ii ) providing for the recovery of the                                  ( 96/C 158/36 )
 allegedly undue payments made in respect of those
 allowances and , second, of the decision adopted by the
 defendant on 26 January 1994 laying down detailed                                 (Language of the case: French)
 measures for the repayment of the sums to be recovered
 pursuant to the aforesaid decision of 24 November 1993 —           In Case T-161 /95 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of the
 the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:        European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
 R. Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and             Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Constantin Nickis, of the
J. Azizi, Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April 1996 , in          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
which it :                                                          Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano
                                                                    and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for annulment of
 1 , dismises the action;                                           the Decision of the Council of 19 May 1 995 , which was
                                                                    adopted for the purposes of drawing up the applicant's staff
                                                                    report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , and
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     for compensation for the material and non-material loss
                                                                    allegedly suffered by him — the Court of First Instance
 (M OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,
                                                                    and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                    Registrar, made an order on 21 March 1996, the operative
                                                                    part of which is as follows :
                                                                    1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 4 March 1996                              2 . The patties are ordered to bear their own costs.
in Case T-3 92/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan v. Council of the
                      European Union (')                            (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                 (No need to give a decision)
                         ( 96/C 158/35 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Action brought on 22 February 1996 by J. Langdon Limited
In Case T-392/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, residing in Bella           against the Commission of the European Communities
Vista ( Ireland ), represented by Desmond O'Neill,
Barrister-at-Law, of the Bar of Ireland, v. Council of the                                  ( Case T-22/96 )
European Union ( Agents : Michael Bishop and Diego Canga                                      ( 96/C 158/37 )
Fano ) — application for the annulment of the Council
Decision of 1 6 September 1 994 not to admit the applicant to                     (Language of the case: English)
Open Competition Council/A/338 on the ground that the
application form was submitted out of time and for an order
that the Council pay him damages — the Court ( Fourth              An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh            Communities was brought before the Court of First
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order         Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
on 4 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 1996 by J. Langdon Limited, represented by Patrick
follows :                                                          O'Brien, Solicitor, and Patrick McCann, Barrister, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at Faltz & Associés , 6 rue
                                                                   Heine .
1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
2 . Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                   — annul the Commission's Decision C ( 95 ) 2726 final of
(M OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       3 November 1995 adressed to Ireland;
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak---  1 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 158/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           detectability' as provided for in Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 1697/79 and/or Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 .
The applicant explains that it is a company engaged in the
sourcing, distribution and marketing of manufactured                  5 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
apparel . Among other things , it is an importer of rainwear              assessment and/or interpretation in relation to the
manufactured from a combination of plastic and textile                    concept of 'obvious negligence ' as provided for in
materials . Between 19 May 1992 and 25 May 1994, the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 , as amended by
applicant imported a number of consignments of the said                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 3069/86 and Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 2913/92 .
rainwear, declaring them to fall within heading 3926 of the
combined nomenclature, which attracted a zero rate of
import duty under the Generalized System of Preferences               6 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
( GSP ). This tariff classification had been accepted on several          assessment in that it has applied two different legislative
occasions by the Irish Customs Service, both by the section               regimes in assessing the case transmitted to it by the Irish
responsible for GSP matters and by the customs import                     Customs Authorities . One of the legislative regimes is
officer dealing with the case, who had even inspected the                 out of date . The legislative regimes have differences in
goods to check that they had been classified correctly . The              points of substance and cannot be applied concurrently.
applicant underlines that the physical examination of the                 The Commission has failed to distinguish between the
goods and the acceptance of its customs declaration further               regimes .
supported it in its view that the correct tariff heading was
3926 . However, after further inspection, the Tariff
Classification Unit determined in November 1993 that the
goods were properly classified under heading 6210 . The
applicant points out that it has accepted that determination
and used it on all subsequent declarations in respect of the
same goods .
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 1996 by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                      Lunghi against the Commission of the European
The case was sent to the Commission by the Irish Customs                                        Communities
Authorities on 26 April 1995 . In due course, the                                            ( Case T-49/96 )
Commission consulted a group of experts within the
framework of the Committee provided for in Article 247 of                                      ( 96/C 158/38 )
the Customs Code . On 3 November 1995 , the Commission
took a decision finding that it was justified to take action for                     (Language of the case: French)
the post-clearance recovery of the import duties in question
and that the remission of these duties was not justified ( the
contested decision ).                                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1996 by
The action is based on the following pleas in law:                    Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, residing in Brussels,
                                                                      represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Jacques
1 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
      Regulations in that it was taken outside the six month          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
      time period provided for. This time period is mandatory         Rheinsheim .
      and provides for no exceptions or derogations .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
2.    The Decision was taken in breach of a fundamental
      principle of Community law: the principle of Audi               — declare that the compensation proposed by the
      alteram partem was infringed in that the applicant                  Commission is inadequate to satisfy the applicant's
      was not permitted to express its views effectively in               rights, and order the Commission to pay the damages
      proceedings which have involved unfavourable                        particularized by the defendant in her complaint of
      consequences for it .                                               11 September 1995 ;
3 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      Regulations and/or in breach of an essential procedural
      requirement in that the relevant Regulations require the        Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission to consult with a group of experts
      composed of all Member States . The applicant believes
      that several Member States were not represented in the          The applicant, an official retired on medical grounds,
      committee .                                                     contests the decision of the Commission limiting to
                                                                      Bfr 150 000 the compensation for the material and
                                                                      non-material damage suffered by her as a result of the
4 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error                disappearance of her personal belongings, which was caused
      of assessment in relation to the concept of 'reasonable         by a service-related fault .