CELEX: C2002/247/35
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-240/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by Koninklĳke Cooperatie Cosun U.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 247/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.10.2002
Action brought on 9 August 2002 by Koninklijke Co-                        The applicant first submits that the decision under challenge is
operatie Cosun U.A. against the Commission of the                         contrary to Articles 1 and 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 in so
                     European Communities                                 far as the Commission does not treat the extra charges as being
                                                                          import or export duties. According to the decision, those
                                                                          charges do not come within the scope of Regulation No 1430/
                         (Case T-240/02)                                  79 and cannot be remitted. The applicant, however, contends
                                                                          that the charge is an import or export duty and that Regulation
                         (2002/C 247/35)                                  No 1430/79 does indeed apply. It argues that the charge has
                                                                          the same objective as a customs duty and is for the same
                                                                          amount as a customs duty. Consequently, non-exported
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         C sugar ought to be treated in the same way as sugar imported
                                                                          from non-member countries.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant goes on to contend that the decision under
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                challenge is at variance with the principles of equal treatment
European Communities on 9 August 2002 by Koninklijke                      and equity. As a result of that decision the applicant has no
Coöperatie Cosun U.A., having its registered office in Breda,             entitlement whatever to remission of the extra charge even
represented by M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder.                             though no negligence can be attributed to it and it is in a
                                                                          special situation. The applicant claims that it is thereby being
                                                                          treated differently to an undertaking requesting remission of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               import or export duties. This also creates a gap in the legal
                                                                          protection afforded it. This gap, the applicant argues, is at odds
—     Annul European Commission Decision C(2002) 1580                     with the principle of legal certainty.
      final (file number REM 19/01) of 2 May 2002 addressed
      to the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-                    common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981
      ings.                                                                    L 177 of 01.7.1981, pp 4-31).
                                                                          (2 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
                                                                               1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar
                                                                               production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262 of 16.9.1981,
                                                                               pp 14-16).
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                               repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
                                                                               L 175 of 12.7.1979, pp 1-7).
The applicant manufactured so-called C sugar. This sugar must             (4 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
be exported from the Community not later than one year after                   establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302 of
                                                                               19.10.1992, pp 1-50).
the year of production. Failing this, extra charges are imposed
in accordance with Regulations No 1785/81 (1) and No 2670/
81 (2).
In 1993 the applicant sold C sugar to third parties, which were
to export it from the Community. However, the Nederlandse
Fiscale Inlichtingen en Opsporingsdienst (Netherlands Fiscal
Intelligence and Investigation Service) established that fraud            Action brought on 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut
had been committed during transportation and that the C sugar                  against Commission of the European Communities
had in fact not been exported from the Community. In the
interests of the investigation, the applicant was at first not
informed of these developments. It was, however, ascertained                                        (Case T-241/02)
that the applicant was not itself involved in the fraud. Despite
this, the fact that the applicant had been kept in the dark with
regard to the fraud meant that it was unable to export the                                          (2002/C 247/36)
sugar within the prescribed period and thus avoid incurring
the extra charges for non-exported C sugar.
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
The applicant thereupon sought remission of the extra charges
on the basis of Regulation No 1430/79 (3), replaced by
Regulation No 2913/92 (4). It argued that no negligence or                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
manipulative conduct could be attributed to it and that it was            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
also in a special situation inasmuch as it had not been                   European Communities on 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut,
immediately informed of the fraud. The Commission rejected                residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by
its request for remission in the decision under challenge.                Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.