CELEX: C1999/281/57
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-186/99: Action brought on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media Ireland Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/31
Action brought on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media                          Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
Ireland Limited against the Commission of the European                    failed to give any reasons as to why an error on the part of the
                           Communities                                    Irish customs authorities which it acknowledges for part of the
                                                                          period covered by the Decision should reasonably have been
                         (Case T-186/99)                                  detected by the applicant and, in finding that the applicant
                                                                          could reasonably have detected the Irish authorities’ error, has
                                                                          infringed Article 5(2) by failing to have regard or adequate
                         (1999/C 281/57)                                  regard to (a) the nature of the error, (b) the professional
                                                                          experience of the applicant and (c) the degree of care exercised
                                                                          by the applicant.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicant also argues that, in refusing remission in respect
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 of the import duties in question, the Commission has infringed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and failed to give
European Communities on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media                    reasons for its decision. In particular, the Commission has
Ireland Limited, represented by Damian Collins and Gerald                 ignored the general equitable nature of the remission procedure
FitzGerald with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               provided for in Article 13 by failing properly to take account
Chambers of Stéphane Le Goueff, 9 avenue Guillaume.                       of the conduct of the Irish authorities and its impact on the
                                                                          applicant and of the situation of the applicant during the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               periods in question. In addition, the Commission has relied
                                                                          on an incorrect understanding of the concept of ‘obvious
— annul Commission Decision C(99) 968 of 28 April 1999                    negligence’and requires an excessively high level of care on the
     in its entirety;                                                     part of the trader concerned. Finally, the Commission, while
                                                                          finding the existence of a special situation for part of the
— in the alternative, annul the Decision in so far as it relates          period covered by the decision and not finding any deception
     to import duties in respect of the period January 1992 to            on the applicant’s part at any time, has nevertheless denied
     February 1993;                                                       remission although it has also not made any finding of ‘obvious
— in the further alternative, annul the Decision in so far as it          negligence’on the applicant’s part during the period in which a
     relates to import duties in respect of the period January to         special situation is acknowledged or, if it has made such a
     October 1992;                                                        finding of ‘obvious negligence’, it has failed to provide the
                                                                          reasons on which this finding of obvious negligence is based.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested Decision the Commission ordered the                             Removal from the register of Case T-169/97 (1)
post-clearance recovery by Ireland of import duties from the
applicant and refused remission in respect of those import                                        (1999/C 281/58)
duties. The applicant argues that in ordering the post-clearance
recovery of the duties, the Commission has infringed Article
5(2) of Regulation (EEC)No 1697/79 and failed to give reasons                                (Language of the case: Italian)
for its Decision. In particular, the Commission has incorrectly
relied on a concept of ‘active error’in applying Article 5(2) and         By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the First Chamber of
has failed to appreciate the extent to which, during certain              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
periods covered by the Decision, the Irish authorities commit-            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-169/97: Farine
ted an error by continuing to accept customs entries by the               Laziali SpA v Commission of the European Communities.
applicant bearing a tariff classification which those authorities
knew or should have known was incorrect.                                  (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.