CELEX: C1997/318/50
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-218/97)

18 . 10 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   by Seiga SA, whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ),
                                                                      respresented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant, which has imported television sets                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
manufactured in Turkey by various companies since 1987/
88 , applies in this case for the annulment of a decision by
the Commission, which held, on an application submitted               The applicant claims that the Court should:
by France, that 'it is justified to effect post-clearance
recovery of import duties, and the remission of those
duties is not justified in an individual case'.                       — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
The facts are similar to those in Cases T-l 86/97 et seq (')          — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post­
                                                                             clearance, of the duties in dispute,
Concerning the legal background, the applicant in this
case argues that the contested decision makes no reference            — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
to it, that there has been insufficient reasoning, and that                  remission of those duties,
both the Turkish customs authorities and the Commission
committed errors . It submits that the Commission failed
to fulfil its obligations and the legitimate expectations             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
which Community importers might place in its action.
This constituted an 'error on the part of the competent
authorities', within the meaning of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 1697/79 , which the person liable could not reasonably
have detected, since the A.TR documents duly
authenticated by the Turkish authorities could not fail to
give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                      in Case T-2 16/97 (').
Community importers, and the latter had no reason to
cast doubt on them .
                                                                      ( ] ) See previous case .
The applicant maintains that all the conditions for
applying Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79
are fulfilled in this case, and that it is entitled to non-post
clearance recovery of the customs duties in question,
having itself acted in good faith, complying with all the
relevant provisions.                                                  Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the
                                                                                 Commission of the European Communities
Finally, the applicant considers that it fulfils all the                                        ( Case T-2 18/97)
conditions in order to benefit from remission of the
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 318/50 )
customs duties in question, pursuant to Article 13 of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 .
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
(') See page 17 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                      by Seiga SA, the successor of High Tech Industries SA,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ), represented
Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the                by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
          Commission of the European Communities                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
                         ( Case T-2 17/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post­
Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997                         clearance, of the duties in dispute,
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/26               EN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
— in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the             Staff Regulations, which is a clear provision requiring no
     remission of those duties;                                         clarification .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                In adopting the contested decision, the appointing
                                                                        authority applied criteria for granting leave which remain
                                                                        shrouded in mystery, the legal justification of which has
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     not been explained . In so doing, it also infringed Article 25
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-2 16/97 (').
(') See page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens against
                                                                        the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                         of the European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-222/97)
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 318/52 )
Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against
              the Council of the European Union                                         (Language of the case: German)
                         ( Case T-219/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/51 )                              An action against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Communities on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens,
                                                                        of Aschendorf/Moor ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                        represented by Burkhard Josef Remmers, Rechtsanwalt,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 Papenburg ( Germany ), with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance on 25 July                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk & Prum, 13a
1997 by Anita Brems, resident in Relegem ( Belgium ),                   Avenue Guillaume .
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson                 The applicant claims that the Court should order the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                              defendants to pay to the applicant damages amounting to
                                                                        DM 69 503,40, together with 8 % interest from 1 October
                                                                        1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Council's decisions refusing to allow her the
     entire period from 24 May to 8 June 1996 as sick­                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     leave,                                                             those in the other milk quota cases.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against
                                                                                            the European Parliament
The application challenges the legality of the refusal to                                       ( Case T-223/97)
allow as sick-leave the entire period of the applicant's
absence from 24 May to 8 June 1996 .                                                              ( 97/C 318/53 )
                                                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
According to the applicant, in refusing her sick-leave
covering her entire absence, the appointing authority
breached the principles set out in Article 59 of the Staff              An action against the European Parliament was brought
Regulations as clarified in the case-law of the Court of                before the Court of First Instance of the European
Justice and the Court of First Instance .                               Communities on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman, a freelance
                                                                        interpreter, resident at Zurich ( Switzerland ), represented
                                                                        by G. Van der Wal, a Member of the Orde van Advocaten
The    conclusion     of    the   heads   of  administration   of       at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme
1 February 1996 concerning grant of the second half of                  Court), Barents & Krans Advocaten Notarissen, Brussels,
special leave for a thermal cure is illegal, inasmuch as it             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 59 of the            Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue .