CELEX: C2000/285/23
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-176/00: Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV against the Commission of the European Communities

7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 285/11
The applicant asserts, first of all, that the two directives referred      In August 1993 the applicant, a Community Medical Specialist
to above infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate           in Rheumatology submitted to the Commission under
expectations. It was legitimately entitled to expect, first, that          Article 3(2) of Council regulation No. 17 an application for a
the prohibition of the hormones at issue was merely a                      finding that the GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the
temporary measure which was to apply pending the pro-                      EEC Treaty.
duction of an appropriate scientific assessment of the question
whether or not they presented a danger to human health and,
                                                                           The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
second, that the scope of the derogations provided for in
                                                                           in case T-286/97 Goldstein/Commission (1). According to the
Directive 88/146 would be gradually extended to cover the
                                                                           applicant, the conditions laid down in Article 232 EC are
categories of animals which it proposed to import from the
                                                                           satisfied because 80 months have elapsed since it submitted,
United States into the Community.
                                                                           on 20 September 1995, his observations on the Commission’s
                                                                           letter of 9 February 1995 under Article 6 of Council Regulation
The applicant also pleads infringement of the WTO agree-                   No 99/63.
ments. It states in that regard that the European Union has
been censured by the dispute-settlement body of the WTO for
having enacted Directives 81/602, 88/146 and 96/22, on                     (1) OJ EC C 7, of 10.1.1998, p. 25.
account of infringement of the SPS agreement.
(1) OJ L 70 of 16.3.1988, p. 16.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December) JO L 302, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 125 of 23.5.1996, p. 3.
                                                                           Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV against the
                                                                                    Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-176/00)
Action brought on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Goldstein
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                (2000/C 285/23)
                          (Case T-175/00)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 285/22)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Cargill BV, a
                   (Language of the case: English)                         company incorporated under Netherlands law, established in
                                                                           Amsterdam, represented by H.J. Bronkhorst and L.H. van
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Lennep, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo
European Communities on 29 June 2000 by Anthony Gold-                      Hemmer.
stein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
Merriman White, London.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the decision of 24 February 2000 addressed to it
                                                                                 by the Commission of the European Communities, in so
—     declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the                         far as Article 1(2) of that decision is concerned;
      Commission has failed to act by not having delivered a
      decision on the applicant’s complaint lodged with the                —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
      Commission on 10 August 1993;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In Article 1(2) of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                           found that remission of import duties in respect of a specific
                                                                           sum was not justified.
The applicant challenges the inaction of the Commission in
relation to one complaint, focused on the alleged anti-
competitive practices on the part of the General Medical                   The applicant’s claim is based on the following grounds:
Council (GMC), a statutory body which regulates the medical
profession in the territory of the United Kingdom.                         (a)   violation of the rights of the defence:
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.10.2000
(b) infringement, resulting from misapplication of the law,           According to the Commission, it is apparent from the file
      of, respectively, Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC)        received by it from the Netherlands authorities that there can
      No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or                   be no question of any manipulation on the part of Cargill. Be
      remission of import or export duties, as last amended by        that as it may, Cargill did not act with all due care in the
      Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89, Article 239 of Council             present case.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
      lishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs
                                                                      However, according to Cargill, there can be no question of its
      Code’) and Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regu-
                                                                      having failed to exercise due care, since its authorisation to
      lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
                                                                      engage in inward processing presupposed at the same time the
      provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      possible application of the system of equivalent compensation.
      (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
      Code (‘the implementing regulation’);
                                                                      Moreover, Cargill previously made repeated approaches to the
                                                                      competent Netherlands authorities with a view to obtaining
(c)   infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as laid
                                                                      clarification regarding the question whether or not it had
      down in Article 253 EC;
                                                                      correctly applied the relevant rules concerning inward pro-
                                                                      cessing and equivalent compensation. Cargill cannot be blamed
(d) breach of the principle of proportionality.                       for the fact that the national authorities committed an error;
                                                                      and, moreover, special circumstances exist within the meaning
                                                                      of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 and Article 239 of
Cargill was originally an undertaking engaged in the processing       the Customs Code.
of maize. The end product was glucose. As a result of
low wheat prices and improved processing techniques, the
processing of wheat into glucose subsequently became profit-
able. Following the final stage of the production process, the
same equipment is used without distinction for the two raw
materials.
Cargill imported maize under the inward processing arrange-           Action brought on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Industrie
ments, paying no import duties in respect of the imported             Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl against the Commission of the
quantities. On the other hand, it was obliged to export the                               European Communities
compensating product without any refund within 6 months
after importation.                                                                             (Case T-179/00)
The competent Netherlands authority demanded from the                                          (2000/C 285/24)
applicant payment of a customs debt, stating that, to the extent
that glucose was manufactured from a mixed commodity flow
consisting of maize and wheat, the use of wheat therein                                  (Language of the case: English)
was impermissible under the rules governing the system
of equivalent compensation (Article 9 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2228/91, Article 569 of the implementing regulation and            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 27(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for                European Communities on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Indus-
the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural       trie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, represented by Denis Wael-
products).                                                            broeck and Dirk Brinckman of Liedekerke Simeon Wessing
                                                                      Houthoff, Brussels.
In its decision, the Commission states that the present case
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
concerns a special situation within the meaning of Article 13
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and Article 239 of the
Customs Code respectively. The reasons advanced by it for             —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
that assertion are that Cargill has satisfied all the rules                 request by the applicant to use its logo in the blue box of
laid down under the abovementioned inward processing                        the packaging of the pharmaceutical product OPTRUMA;
arrangements. Moreover, the production process in question
constitutes a normal procedure in the European starch industry        —     subsidiarily declare also the European Commission Guide-
for undertakings which use both maize and wheat as raw                      line on Packaging Information of medical products for
materials for the production of glucose.                                    human use authorised by the Community illegal under
                                                                            Article 241 EC in so far as it could be read as containing
                                                                            a prohibition on the use of the logo by the local
The Commission observes, however, that such a special                       representative or a licensee;
situation may nevertheless give rise to remission of import
duties only if no manipulation or manifest negligence can be          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the present
imputed to the person concerned.                                            proceedings.