CELEX: C2003/007/46
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-336/02: Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christensen against Commission of the European Communities

11.1.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/23
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             The applicants further request, in the alternative, the appli-
                                                                        cation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/
—     annul the decision of the Commission REM 14/01 of                 87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt (2), which precludes
      28 June 2002, notified on 2 September 2002, finding no            payment of customs duty in respect of those goods which
      ground for remission of import duties in respect of               have been confiscated.
      imported goods valued at EUR 256 983,63;
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1.
—     in the alternative, and subject to all manner of reser-           (2 ) OJ 1987 L 201, p. 15.
      vations, declare none the less, pursuant to Article 8(19)(b)
      of Regulation EEC No 2144/87, that in the present case a
      remission of import duties is due to the applicants in
      respect of the 8 010 kilograms confiscated from all the
      accused in the criminal proceedings;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christen-
                                                                           sen against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-336/02)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 7/46)
The applicants in the present case are contesting the defend-
ant’s decision finding that there is no ground for the remission
of import duties amounting to EUR 256 983 requested by the                                  (Language of the case: French)
Italian Republic on 4 June 2001 (DOSSIER REM 14/01,
notified in EEC C(2002) 2384 final).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicants were asked to pay customs duty on two                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
consignments of cigarettes amounting to more than LIT                   European Communities on 6 November 2002 by Susan
2.5 billion, as they then were, dating from as far back as 1992.        Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Georges
They challenged the order for payment before the Italian                Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
courts and sought a remission from the Commission, which
refused it.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present application has been brought under Article 13 of            —     annul the decision of the Selection Board for Competition
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the                     COM/R/A/2000 of 3 December 2001 refusing to include
repayment or remission of import or export duties (1). The                    the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that she
applicants claim that they could not be required to pay                       failed to obtain, during the oral tests, the minimum
customs duty in that there are in the present case ‘special                   number of points to be included and, in so far as
situations’ such as to preclude such a requirement of payment,                necessary, the decision of the authority empowered to
since they had placed legitimate reliance on commercial and                   conclude contracts of employment (AECE) of 23 July
transport documents submitted to them when the goods were                     2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified on
declared at customs which gave to understand that the goods                   30 July 2002;
were packaging.
                                                                        —     annul all the operations and acts relating to the compe-
                                                                              tition subsequent to the irregularities contained in the
The special situation giving entitlement to remission arises                  decision of 3 December 2001 and, in particular, the
from the fact that the customs declarant has no way of being                  reserve list and the appointment decisions taken on the
able to check the content of the lorry crossing the border and                basis of that list;
furthermore that the documents appeared to be in order, while
the consignment cleared customs under the ‘conformity’
procedure by the customs authority.                                     —     order the defendant, in any event, to adopt any measure
                                                                              necessary to ensure that the applicant’s rights are restored;
Furthermore, in the present case, there was no ‘negligence’ or          —     otherwise, order the defendant to pay damages assessed
‘deception’, as required under Article 13, inasmuch as the                    at EUR 22 088,34, subject to increase;
applicants properly declared the goods, in accordance with the
commercial and transport documents.                                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
selection board in competition COM/R/A/2000 refusing to
include her name on the reserve list.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant relies on four pleas             The present action seeks the annulment of the decision by
in law. First, she alleges breach of the principle of non-               which the applicant was notified of her non-admission to the
discrimination, breach of essential procedural requirements,             tests in competition COM/A/10/01 because she was beyond
infringement of the rules governing the organisation of tests            the age-limit provided for in the notice of competition.
and infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations. In the applicant’s view, the selection board was
not composed of a stable number of members and did not                   The pleas in law and main arguments have previously been
carry out its work impartially.                                          put forward in T-219/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission ( 1).
The applicant in her second plea in law alleges infringement
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 C 233, p. 30.
of the competition notice.
Third, she alleges breach of the interest of the service,
infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants of the European Communities and manifest
error of assessment.
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of equal           Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI
treatment between men and women, breach of the equal                     association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga
opportunity policy, breach of positive actions and breach of                        against Council of the European Union
the principle according to which the administration is bound
by the acts which it adopts.
                                                                                                  (Case T-338/02)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 7/48)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-337/02)                                  Communities on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association,
                                                                         Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga, established in
                          (2003/C 7/47)                                  Baiona (France) and in Donostia (Spain), Araitz Zubimendi
                                                                         Izaga, residing in Hernani (Spain), and Aritza Galarraga,
                                                                         residing in Senpere (France), represented by Didier Rouget,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        avocat.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz                    —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
Herrera, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-                    EUR 1 000 000 to the SEGI association and
Gallardo and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.                                   EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz
                                                                               Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                               rate of 4,5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission refusing Olga                       judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
      Lutz’s application to take part in COM/A/10/01; and                      payment is effected;