CELEX: C2000/302/69
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-203/00: Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Beemsterboer Coldstore Services B.V. 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.