CELEX: C2000/302/70
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-204/00: Action brought on 31 July 2000 by CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum BV against the Commission of the European Communities

21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/29
Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Beemsterboer                          Action brought on 31 July 2000 by CCBB Vervoer- en
Coldstore Services B.V. against the Commission of the                    Distributiecentrum BV against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                                                    European Communities
                         (Case T-203/00)                                                         (Case T-204/00)
                         (2000/C 302/69)                                                         (2000/C 302/70)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Beemsterboer                    European Communities on 31 July 2000 by CCBB Vervoer-
Coldstore Services B.V., established at Harderwijk (Nether-              en Distributiecentrum BV, having its registered office in
lands), represented by K.H.L. van Waasbergen, of Messrs Den              Rotterdam, represented by R.G. Snouckaert van Schauburg, of
Hollander Advocaten, lawyers, of Hellevoetsluis (Netherlands),           the Amsterdam Bar.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
J.-J. Soisson, of Ernst & Young SA, Rue Richard Coudenhove               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Kalergi, Kirchberg.
                                                                         Primarily:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     Annul the decision of the Commission of the European
—      annul the Commission’s decision of 11 April 2000                        Communities of 4 February 1998 whereby the Com-
       (REM 34/99) addressed to the Kingdom of the Nether-                     mission rejected the request made the Netherlands to
       lands, concerning an application for remission of import                forego, for the applicant’s benefit, post-clearance recovery
       duties;                                                                 of import duties in respect of the importation of television
                                                                               sets from Turkey in November 1993, or to grant
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  remission of those duties (Decision C(98) 241);
                                                                         —     Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                ings.
The action concerns the import declaration relating to turkey            In the alternative, should the decision not be annulled:
meat slaughtered and prepared in the kosher way. The meat
in question was the subject of an import declaration which               —     Order the Commission none the less to pay the costs of
was submitted by the applicant under Customs Code                              these proceedings (its own costs and those of the
No 1602 3111 but which should have been submitted, accord-                     applicant).
ing to the customs authorities, under Code No 0207 2710.
The customs authorities nevertheless waited for over a year              In the further alternative:
before advising the applicant to that effect and demanding               —     Order the Commission to pay its own costs.
additional import duties. The contested decision rejected
Beemsterboer’s application for remission of import duties.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant advances
two pleas in law:                                                        In 1993 the applicant made a declaration to the customs
                                                                         authorities in Rotterdam concerning the importation for home
—      infringement, or misapplication, of Article 239 of the            use of 640 colour television sets. In view of the fact that an
       Community Customs Code: According to the applicant,               A.TR.1 certificate issued by the Turkish authorities in respect
       the Commission, applying incorrect criteria and without           of movements of goods, as prescribed in Decision No 5/72 of
       giving any explanation for the fact that approximately            the EEC-Turkey Association Council, was submitted along
       half a year elapsed between the discovery of what the             with the declaration in respect of those television sets, no
       customs authorities claim to be an incorrect code number          import duties were due.
       and the commencement of an in-depth investigation in
       that connection, concluded that there could be no                 The customs authorities in Rotterdam informed the applicant
       question of a ‘special situation’ within the meaning of           in 1995 that it appeared from an investigation conducted by
       Article 239 of the Community Customs Code;                        the European Commission that the A.TR.1 certificate which
                                                                         the applicant had submitted in 1993 had been improperly
—      failure to comply with the obligation to provide a                issued by the Turkish authorities. Post-clearance recovery of
       statement of reasons: No reasons are given for the                the import duties was for that reason effected.
       positions adopted by the Commission; alternatively, they
       are supported by reasons which are based on errors of             The customs authorities referred the matter to the European
       fact and law. Consequently, it cannot justify the positions       Commission, which delivered a decision on 4 February 1998
       adopted by it.                                                    to the effect that repayment of the import duties recovered
                                                                         post-clearance was not justified. The present action has been
                                                                         brought against that decision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
The applicant puts forward four pleas in law.                          Action brought on 8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                                   Campos against European Parliament
First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural
requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EC Trea-                                   (Case T-207/00)
ty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC):
Contrary to Article 16 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,                                  (2000/C 302/71)
in the version applicable at the material time, the decision was
not signed by the Commission Member responsible and by an
authorised agent of the Commission’s Secretary-General.
                                                                                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Second plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regulation No 2454/93                An action against the European Parliament was brought before
laying down provisions for the implementation of the Com-              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
munity Customs Code, and infringement of the principle of              8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos, residing in Lisbon,
legal certainty:                                                       represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.
The decision was adopted on 4 February 1998, but it was not
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
until 6 June 2000, that is to say, 28 months later, that the
customs authorities brought it to the applicant’s attention.
                                                                       —     declare unlawful the ‘Rules on the implementation of the
                                                                             mobility policy’, adopted by the Bureau of the European
Third plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
                                                                             Parliament on 16 December 1998;
Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the
Community Customs Code:
                                                                       —     annul the decision communicated to him by letter
                                                                             No 107854 of 30 March 2000 by the Directorate General
Under that provision, subsequent entry in the accounts is not                of Personnel, according to which he is subject to the
to take place where the amount of duty legally owed failed to                scheme for 2000;
be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of
the customs authorities which could not reasonably have been
detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his          —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
part having acted in good faith.
This matter was the subject of lengthy discussions between the         Pleas in law and main arguments
Turkish authorities and the European Commission.
The matter has been fully resolved since 1994, inasmuch as             The applicant has brought an action under Article 91(4) of the
the Turkish authorities have brought their export provisions           Staff Regulations of the European Communities against the
into line with the wishes expressed by the Commission.                 decision communicated to him by means of letter No 107854
                                                                       of 30 March 2000 from the Directorate General for Personnel,
                                                                       of the European Parliament, according to which he is subject
Article 220 of the Community Customs Code is not confined              to the mobility scheme for the year 2000.
to errors on the part of the customs authorities of the Member
States of the European Union. Errors made by the customs
authorities of non-member countries coming within the scope            The applicant claims that the contested measure:
of agreements entered into with the European Union must
also fall under that provision.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle of legal certainty
Fourth plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Article 239 of the Community Customs Code:                                   The assurance that Lisbon would be the place where he
                                                                             would undertake the duties for which he was recruited
                                                                             was, for the applicant, an essential element in his decision
According to the applicant, the Commission has wrongly                       to accept the offer of employment made to him by the
overlooked the fact that the present constitutes an exceptional              European Parliament.
case within the meaning of Article 239 of the Community
Customs Code, as elaborated in Article 905 of Regulation
No 2454/93, resulting from circumstances in which no decep-                  The Parliament must honour the promises it made as to
tion or obvious negligence may be attributed to the persons                  the place where the applicant was to undertake the duties
concerned.                                                                   for which he was recruited if it is not to be in breach of
                                                                             the principle of legitimate expectations.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle that laws are not retroactive