CELEX: C1998/358/32
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard France against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-133/98)

C 358/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
Action brought on 19 June 1998 by A. Alferink and                  Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard
Others against the Commission of the European                      France against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                                       Communities
                        (Case T-94/98)                                                    (Case T-133/98)
                         (98/C 358/31)                                                     (98/C 358/32)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 August
Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1998               1998 by Hewlett Packard France, the registered office of
by A. Alferink and others, all residing in the Netherlands,        which is at Courcouronnes (France), represented by
represented by H. J. Bronkhorst, of the Hague Bar, and             Fabrice Goguel and Anne Trager, of the Paris Bar, with an
E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels Bar, with an              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of T.            Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.
Loesch, 11 rue Goethe.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Commission Decision 98/406/EC published on
                                                                        pages 45 and 46 of the Official Journal of the
Ð order the Commission to pay the sums specified in the                 European Communities of 23 June 1998, requiring
     application by way of compensation for the damage                  the revocation of binding Tariff Information No
     suffered by the applicants as a result of the defective            FR 12030199700151, which had correctly classified
     enactment of Article 3(a) of Commission Regulation                 HP JetDirect EX Plus (and Ex Plus 3) machines under
     (EEC) No 1546/88 (1), together with interest thereon               heading 8471.80.10;
     at the rate of 8 % per annum from 23 February 1998
     until the date of full settlement;
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under French law
                                                                   which imports into France and manufactures in that
                                                                   country hardware and software for use in the operation of
The applicants, all of whom are SLOM farmers who have              local area networks' (LANs), contests the revocation of
made use of business assets leased from third parties,             Binding Tariff Information No FR 12030199700151
complain that the Commission has acted unlawfully by               issued by the French customs authorities, which classified
enacting defective legislation. They consider that the             HP JetDirect EX Plus/Ex Plus 3 machines under heading
interpretation applied to the abovementioned provision Ð           8471.80.10 in accordance with the combined Community
according to which, before a definitive reference quantity         nomenclature. The machines in question consist of an
can be allocated, milk production must be resumed by the           electronic card of the Jet Direct type which is inserted in a
original SLOM undertaking or through the same                      unit linked to one or more printers, enabling several
economic and organisational unit as originally existed at          computers within a local area network to have access to
the time when the SLOM undertaking was entered into Ð              and control of that printer or those printers. As a result of
is inconsistent with the wording of the article in question,       the contested revocation decision, the French Directorate-
with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 (2) and with              General of Customs has had to classify the machine in
the rules implementing it. The Commission has not clearly          question under heading 8517.50.
formulated the restriction which it sought to introduce
and has thus breached the principle of due diligence.
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the
                                                                   defendant has incorrectly assessed the general rules for the
(1) OJ L 139, 4.6.1988, p. 12.                                     interpretation of the combined nomenclature, laid down in
(2) OJ L 131, 26.5.1977, p. 1.                                     Section 1.A of Part I of Annex I to Council Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
                                                                   statistical nomenclature and on the common customs
                                                                   tariff, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2509/97.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/17
In particular, it emphasizes that the attempt to ascribe to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
local area networks a function which is peculiar to
telecommunications is based on an excessively broad
interpretation of the concept of telecommunications. In its         The applicant contests the revocation of certain binding
view, the chief characteristic of telecommunications                tariff information concerning various machines having the
equipment is that it enables data to be transmitted over            functions of commutators and intended for use in local
unlimited distances; consequently, it is radically different        area networks.
from that used in local area networks. Moreover, that
difference in terms of distance is directly linked to a             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
functional difference. Transmissions within a local area            Case T-133/98 Hewlett Packard France v. Commission.
network are extremely rapid; such rapidity is technically
possible over short distances only. With long-distance
telecommunications, by contrast, the maximum speed of
transmission is very much slower.
The applicant further claims that the equipment in                  Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the
question simultaneously fulfils the three conditions which,         Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato against
according to Note 5(B) of Chapter 84, must be met in                       the Commission of the European Communities
order for a unit to be regarded as forming part of a
complete system, and that it thus falls, in accordance with                               (Case T-139/98)
Note 5(C), within the scope of heading No 84.71: it                                        (98/C 358/34)
constitutes equipment of the type used exclusively in
automatic data processing systems, is connectable to the
central processing unit through the local area network or                          (Language of the case: Italian)
networks and is also able to accept data in a form which
can be used by the system.                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                    1998 by the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di
                                                                    Stato (Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies),
                                                                    represented by Pier Giorgio Ferri and Danilo Del Gaizo,
                                                                    of the Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, with an address
Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard
                                                                    for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue
Europe BV against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Marie-Adelaïde.
                         Communities
                       (Case T-134/98)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (98/C 358/33)
                                                                    Ð annul the contested decision, pursuant to the form of
               (Language of the case: French)                           order sought under Heading B (point 8 et seq.);
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð in the alternative, annul that part of the decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       challenged in the remaining forms of order, and
Instance of the European Communities on 20 August                       accordingly reduce the scale of the fine imposed;
1998 by Hewlett Packard Europe BV, the registered office
of which is at Amstelveen (Netherlands), represented by
Fabrice Goguel and Anne Trager, of the Paris Bar, with an           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant in the present case (the AAMS') is a body
                                                                    forming part of the Amministrazione Finanziaria dello
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/406/EC of 16 June                    Stato Italiano (Financial Administration of the Italian
    1998, published on pages 45 and 46 of the Official              State), which, in addition to performing various
    Journal of the European Communities of 23 June                  administrative functions, is also involved in the production
    1998, in so far as it requires the revocation of Binding        and wholesale distribution of processed tobacco products.
    Tariff Information Nos FR 12030199701394,                       Through the contested decision (1), the defendant cast
    12030199702134 and 12030199702135, which had                    doubt on the compatibility with Article 86 of the EC
    correctly classified the machines in issue under heading        Treaty of certain conduct by the applicant organisation in
    8471.80.10;                                                     relation to a number of clauses in the standard-form
                                                                    contract for the distribution of cigarettes of other
                                                                    manufacturing undertakings and in relation to certain
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                        unilateral steps taken in regard to imported cigarettes and