CELEX: C2000/063/50
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-328/99: Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

4.3.2000                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 63/25
According to the applicant, that decision is vitiated on the              Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
grounds put forward in a separate application for annulment               Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
of a similar decision (Case T-179/99 Sud Pesca Srl) (1). With                                         munities
specific reference to the present case, the applicant alleges the
following:                                                                                        (Case T-328/99)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 63/50)
— failure to comply with essential procedural requirements:
     the Genoa customs authority directly issued new claims                                 (Language of the case: English)
     for recovery of the duties without any inter partes procedure
     and without making any checks via the Turkish authorities.
     At the same time, the customs authority stated that the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     claims were intended solely to stop time running and                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     suggested that traders apply for non-subsequent entry in             European Communities on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
     the accounts. It also told the various subordinate customs           Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
     offices not to release subsequent imports of a similar kind          of 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1JU, United Kingdom.
     unless security was lodged, in accordance with the deferred
     taxation procedure, pending the outcome of such claims.              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     In so doing, the Italian customs authorities acted in breach
     of the right to appeal revised customs claims;                       — order the defendant to adopt all measures necessary to
                                                                               protect the professional reputation of the applicant;
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR
— the checks made by the Commission’s inspectors cannot                        400 000 to the applicant;
     be relied upon — as regards the finding of third-country
     origin on which the customs claims rely — in so far as               — order the defendant to bear the costs.
     they were carried out unilaterally and have been challenged
     by the exporter;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In 1995 the applicant submitted to the Commission under
— lack of direct, or even indirect or putative, evidence as to            Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a
     the non-Turkish origin of the product imported by the                finding that the General Council of the Bar, an authority in the
     applicant;                                                           field of the provision of legal services in the United Kingdom,
                                                                          had infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC. At the same time it
                                                                          requested the Commission to adopt interim measures. The
                                                                          applicant now seeks compensation for the damage occasioned
                                                                          to him by the unlawful failure of the Commission to adopt the
— the conditions precluding subsequent entry in the accounts              interim measures requested.
     are satisfied, in so far as the importer has shown good faith
     and complied with the legislation in force, and the customs
     authorities have acted — albeit passively — in error.
The applicant also challenges the reference in the contested              Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino
decision to the concept of commercial risk.                                       and Others against the European Parliament
                                                                                                  (Case T-329/99)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 63/51)
( 1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 29.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino and Others, with
                                                                          Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand
                                                                          Sablon.