CELEX: C2002/003/61
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-243/01: Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             of the OCT decision. Moreover, the Commission has failed to
                                                                        prove any causal link between those problems and the
                                                                        deterioration in a sector of the Community’s activity. The
(1) annul Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001;                                 applicant further claims that the importation of sugar and
                                                                        sugar/cocoa mixtures from the OCT has no impact on those
(2) declare that the Community is liable for the loss and               problems.
      damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact
      that, since 19 July 2001, imports of the products referred        In addition, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
      to in Regulation No 1476/2001 have been prevented or              proportionality and infringement of Articles 3 and 182 to 184
      restricted on account of that regulation, and order that          of the EC Treaty. It claims that the contested regulation fails to
      the parties are to seek to reach agreement concerning the         take account of the preferential treatment afforded by those
      extent of the loss and damage suffered by the applicant           articles to the OCTs.
      and that, in the absence of agreement in that regard, the
      proceedings are to be resumed within a time-limit to be
      fixed by the Court in order for the extent of the loss and        Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers on the part of
      damage to be determined; or, at any rate, order the               the Commission and a failure to provide a statement of reasons
      Community to pay the damages provisionally estimated              for the contested regulation.
      and yet to be assessed, alternatively order the Community
      to pay such amount of damages as the Court shall deem
      fair and equitable, together with interest at the annual          (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
      rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the date of           amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
      payment in full;                                                      measures with regard to imports from the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
                                                                            originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  L 195 of 19.7.2001, p. 29).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
                                                                            providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
                                                                            with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
                                                                            originating status from the overseas countries and territories for
                                                                            the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                        p. 57).
The applicant produces, in Aruba, sugar and sugar/cocoa
mixtures. Aruba forms part of the association of overseas
countries and territories (OCTs). By virtue of the cumulation
of EC/OCT and ACP/OCT originating status, the sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures produced by the applicant have OCT                 Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer
originating status and may be imported into the EC free from            Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of
levies.                                                                                    the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-243/01)
However, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001 (1) amending Commission                                                (2002/C 3/61)
Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), a quota of
6 684 tonnes was introduced for mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with ACP/OCT originating status during the period from                                      (Language of the case: English)
19 July to 1 December 2001.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant pleads, first, the illegality of Regulation               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
No 1325/2001, which it is contesting in separate proceedings            European Communities on 3 October 2001 by SONY Com-
(Case T-211/01).                                                        puter Entertainment Europe Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
                                                                        ippe de Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium)
In support of its claim in the present proceedings, the applicant       The applicant claims that the Court should:
maintains that the contested regulation infringes Article 109 of
the OCT decision. According to the applicant, the Commission            —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) 1400/2001 (1) as
bases its findings concerning the adoption of the safeguard                   far as it classifies the PlayStation®2 under CN code
measures in question on incorrect facts. Thus, the serious                    9504 10 00 and the accompanying CD-ROM under CN
disturbances or difficulties in a sector of the economy of the                code 852 43 99 0;
Community cited by the Commission do not constitute serious
disturbances or difficulties within the meaning of Article 109          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/36                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit
The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,                     him to Competition PE/90/A
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
                                                                           engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
                                                                           for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
                                                                           assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
                                                                           A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
specifications in the contested decision.
                                                                           selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
                                                                           to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
                                                                           ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified          not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as             degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs                  lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,               candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
the contested act violates Council Regulation (EEC)                        inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System                   honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-               equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı́a Técnica
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the             (technical engineering), is not accepted.
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
components in which these functions must be inherent.
                                                                           relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
    concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
    Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the             (2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
    tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs          (3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.
    Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).
                                                                           Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader                            AG against Commission of the European Communities
               Rivas against European Parliament
                                                                                                    (Case T-250/01)
                            (Case T-249/01)
                                                                                                     (2002/C 3/63)
                             (2002/C 3/62)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-              Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
da (Madrid), represented by Diego López Garrido, lawyer.                  represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.