CELEX: C2003/070/50
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-27/03: Action brought on 30 January 2003 by S.P. S.p.A against Commission of the European Communities

22.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/31
Action brought on 28 January 2003 by LEP International                   The applicant states, moreover, that it acted in good faith and
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                    that it was not to blame for the irregularities. Nor, according
                                                                         to the applicant, can any manifest negligence be imputed to it.
                                                                         The fact that the applicant did not take out insurance does
                         (Case T-26/03)                                  not, according to it, constitute negligence. On the contrary,
                                                                         businesses are free to decide whether and, if so, how they
                                                                         cover themselves against possible risks.
                         (2003/C 70/49)
                                                                         (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                              establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ No L 302,
                                                                              19.10.1992, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 January 2003 by LEP Inter-
national BV, established in Schiphol-Rijk (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Cornelis de Bie and Paul Bakker.
                                                                         Action brought on 30 January 2003 by S.P. S.p.A against
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case T-27/03)
—     annul the decision of the European Commission.
                                                                                                   (2003/C 70/50)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Decision of the
European Commission of 7 October 2002 in case REM 08/                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
003 concerning an application for remission of import duties             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
under Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1).                    European Communities on 30 January 2003 by S.P. S.p.A.,
                                                                         represented by Gianluca Belotti and Nicola Pisani, lawyers.
The applicant drew up, on the instructions of Hector Inter-
national Tpt. Ltd., documents for the transport of meat to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Morocco under the external Community transit procedure.
However, the applicant states that, through acts of third                —      declare non-existent and/or null and void or, in any event,
parties, that transit operation was not properly discharged, as                 annul the contested decision;
a result of which the applicant, as the holder of the documents,
was requested to pay the customs duties owed. It therefore
submitted an application to the Netherlands authorities for              —      in the alternative, annul or reduce the penalty imposed
remission of the import duties owed. The application was                        on S.P.;
forwarded to the Commission, which rejected it in the
contested decision.                                                      —      in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant argues that the contested decision infringes
Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, that it assesses             Pleas in law and main arguments
the facts incorrectly and that it is based on an inadequate
statement of reasons.
                                                                         Among various grounds of annulment, the applicant alleges
                                                                         lack of competence of the Commission to adopt on 17 Decem-
According to the applicant, a special circumstance exists since          ber 2002 a decision based on Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty
the customs authorities knew at an early stage that the external         when that treaty expired on 22 July 2002, resulting in the
transit procedure would not be discharged and did not inform             nullity of the decision. According to the applicants, the
the applicant of this. The applicant further argues that a special       Commission did not have the power to adopt the abovemen-
circumstance exists inasmuch as a Spanish official may have              tioned decision in the absence of an express decision to that
been involved.                                                           effect on the part of the Member States.
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/32                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
In support of its application, the applicant contests the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
economic approach adopted in relation to the facts by the
Commission which, on the one hand, defined as the relevant                 —     annul the decision of 11 November 2002 of the Director
market the Italian geographic market but which, on the other                     General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) which,
hand, completely overlooked the fact that the average price of                   as an internal service of the Commission of the European
reinforced concrete in Italy has always been, on average, less                   Communities, declares inadmissible the complaint lodged
than that in the other States.                                                   by the Junta de Andalucía.
Furthermore, S.P. contests the use of documents by the
Commission to substantiate its charges, in particular the                  Pleas in law and main arguments
memorandum of a partner undertaking which, in the Com-
mission’s view, provided useful information to understand the
way in which the accused undertaking operated, without such                The applicant in the present proceedings contests the rejection
documents having been notified to the applicant during the                 of the complaint submitted by Counsellor for Agriculture and
proceeding. Moreover, although the Commission was in                       Fisheries to the Director General of the Anti-Fraud Office
possession of them, it failed to mention that it had made use              (OLAF) after becoming aware of the existence of Report IO/
of such cooperation, preventing the applicant from adopting a              2000/7057 concerning the investigations carried out by OLAF
position in good time in relation to the charges made against              into possible irregularities in the olive oil sector in Spain,
it. In that respect also, the applicant seeks the annulment of             concentrating in particular on the territory of the Comunidad
the decision on the ground of a serious breach of the rights of            Autónoma de Andalucía.
defence.
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
S.P. further alleges error of law, in particular the misapplication
of Article 65 ECSC, claiming that the contested objections do              —     infringement of the principles of legality, in that OLAF’s
not contain sufficient evidence to support the existence of an                   activities covered areas over which there is no judicial
agreement or concerted practices.                                                oversight, and of equality, inasmuch as such conduct
                                                                                 discriminated against any legal or natural person who is
                                                                                 not an official, agent or staff of the Community insti-
Finally, S.P. further contests the methods adopted by the                        tutions, who alone may lodge administrative complaints
Commission when determining the fines to be imposed, in                          against OLAF’s conduct.
particular the multiplier and the increment linked to the
allegedly uninterrupted duration of the alleged infringements              —     infringement of the fundamental right of defence.
and to the alleged extreme seriousness, which has not been
proven, of the infringements.
                                                                           —     that OLAF must accept the complaint in issue by analogy
                                                                                 with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation No 1073/
                                                                                 1994, and reply to the substantive questions raised in the
                                                                                 aforementioned complaint.
Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía against Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 30 January 2003 by The General
                                                                           Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i
                          (Case T-29/03)                                   Danmark ‘SID’) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
                          (2003/C 70/51)
                                                                                                    (Case T-30/03)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 70/52)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía, Seville (Spain), represented by Car-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
men Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyers.                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the