CELEX: C2002/118/45
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-69/02: Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission of the European Communities

C 118/28               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
In 1997 the applicant submitted to the Netherlands customs             Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
authorities an application for remission of import duties              proportionality. It claims that the duty charged is in any event
pursuant to Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 (1), since            disproportionate to any negligence on its part.
the applicant itself had not been involved in the fraud and had,
moreover, taken all possible steps to prevent the fraud.
According to the applicant, it was not to blame, in connection         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
with those shipments, for any fraudulent acts or manifest                  establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
negligence. The Netherlands authorities passed that application            19.10.1992, p. 1).
on to the Commission in accordance with Article 905 of                 (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Regulation No 2454/93 (2). By the contested decision, the                  down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
Commission refused the remission of the customs duties.                    (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                           (OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1).
                                                                       Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organización de
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 907 of            Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission
Regulation No 2454/93. According to the applicant, the time-                            of the European Communities
limit of nine months for issuing the decision was wrongly
extended three times. The applicant further claims that its
rights of defence have been infringed. It states that it was not                                 (Case T-69/02)
kept informed of the course of the procedure, and in particular
of the questions put by the Commission to the Netherlands
authorities. Furthermore, the applicant was initially denied                                    (2002/C 118/45)
access to the complete file for the purposes of submitting its
observations. However, the Commission calculated the time                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
which elapsed in that connection as an extension of time. Yet,
according to the applicant, the time-limit for taking a decision
could not be extended whilst the applicant remained unaware
of the questions put and was denied complete access to the
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
file.
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 12 March 2002 by the Organiza-
                                                                       ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                       office is in Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
                                                                       Garcia-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillém Carrau, law-
                                                                       yers.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further pleads infringement of the principle of
legal certainty. It argues that, pursuant to Article 907 of            —     declare the present action admissible;
Regulation No 2454/93, a decision in its favour must be
deemed to have been taken after nine months had elapsed,               —     annul the measure which is the subject-matter of the
since it was not aware of any extension of the time-limit                    present action by which the European Commission has
provided for in that article.                                                reduced the quantities in respect of which OPTUC is
                                                                             eligible for compensation, namely, Article 2(2) of and
                                                                             the annex to Regulation Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 2496/2001 of 19 December 2001 providing for
                                                                             compensation to producer organisations for tuna deliver-
                                                                             ed to the processing industry between 1 January and
                                                                             31 March 2001 (1),
                                                                       —     make any other appropriate order requiring the Com-
The applicant further contests the Commission’s conclusion                   mission to fulfil its obligations under Article 233 EC and,
that it was manifestly negligent. It argues that it did not itself           in particular, order the European Commission to re-
infringe any rules of law and acted in accordance with                       examine the matter;
established usages and international practice. There was no
causal link between the involvement of the applicant and the           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
fraud which was perpetrated.                                                 pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —      Take any other measure it may consider appropriate;
In the present case, the applicant, a Spanish frozen tunny               —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
producers’ organisation which has previously contested before
the Court of First Instance a number of Commission regu-
lations providing for compensation to producer organisations
for tuna delivered to the processing industry for the quarters
between 1 July 1999 and 31 December 2000 (2), is challenging
the regulation relating to the period between 1 January and
31 March 2001.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-142/01 (3).
                                                                         The applicant is the parent company of a group which is active
                                                                         in the production and sale of products and systems in the
                                                                         sectors of distribution of electricity, industrial control and
(1) OJ 2001 L 337, p. 25.                                                automation. On 16 February 2001 it formally informed the
(2) Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01.                                         Commission of the concentration it intended to enter into
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.
                                                                         with Legrand, the parent company of a group operating in the
                                                                         production and sale of low-voltage electrical equipment.
                                                                         The commission declared the operation incompatible with
                                                                         the common market. The applicant brought an action for
                                                                         annulment of that decision (Case T-310/01; notice published
                                                                         in OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 15). The Commission then ordered
                                                                         the applicant, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric                    (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), to separate from Legrand. The latter
  S.A. against Commission of the European Communities                    decision is the subject of the present proceedings.
                          (Case T-77/02)
                                                                         The applicant observes, first, that in its opinion the decision
                        (2002/C 118/46)
                                                                         declaring the concentration incompatible with the common
                                                                         market should be annulled. Since the decision at issue in the
                                                                         present action is the direct consequence of the first decision,
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the unlawfulness of the first decision entails the unlawfulness
                                                                         of the present decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant observes further that the effect of the contested
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Schneider                       decision is to deprive the applicant of its lawfully held rights
Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-             of property.
resented by Antoine Winckler and Eric de La Serre, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         In support of the present application, the applicant claims,
                                                                         first, that there has been an infringement of its right of access
—     Annul in its entirety, and in the alternative in part, the         to the case-file and its right to a proper hearing. The applicant
      Commission’s decision of 30 January 2002 requiring                 also considers that the report of the hearing officer did not
      undertakings to be separated (Case COMP/M.2283 —                   examine compliance with the rights of the defence throughout
      Schneider/Legrand) on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council         the procedure. The applicant also claims that there was a
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                       breach of the obligation to state reasons.