CELEX: 62017CN0574
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-574/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission

13.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 382/35
            
         Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission
   (Case C-574/17 P)
   (2017/C 382/43)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Combaro SA
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               dismiss Combaro SA’s action as unfounded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Combaro SA to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               Failure of the General Court to characterise the facts correctly in law in regard to the existence of a special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code. (1)
               
               The Commission submits that the General Court alleged erroneous action on its part in so far as, on the one hand, it attributed powers to the Commission which the latter does not at all have or, on the other hand, required it to exercise powers which could no longer contribute to a clarification of the facts. There was, however, no erroneous action on the part of the Commission, with the result that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Distortion by the General Court of the evidence as to there being a special situation under Article 239 of the Customs Code.
               The General Court held, contrary to the documents in the case file, that the signatures on the relevant movement certificates were those of Mr R and that Latvia had not provided the original copies of the stamps used by the Jelgava and Bauska customs offices. Had the General Court assessed the evidence correctly, it would necessarily have concluded that the Commission had carried out an adequate assessment of the facts of the case as regards the imports of linen fabric and that it was fully entitled to take the view that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code as to the existence of a special situation.
               The General Court failed to balance the Commission’s alleged erroneous action against the interests of the importer, who had used false certificates for the movement of goods. In the absence of a balancing of interests, the General Court incorrectly applied Article 239 of the Customs Code, since in the present case the interests of the European Union in ensuring that the customs provisions are complied with must outweigh the interests of the importer.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code with regard to the obvious negligence on the part of Combaro SA.
               The General Court erred in requiring the Commission to prove an intentional infringement of the rules of origin on the part of the importer. Had the rules governing the application of the burden of proof been correctly applied, the General Court would necessarily have recognised that doubts which must justifiably have arisen would have sufficed to place an obligation on an importer to seek information or clarification relevant to the customs clearing procedures in question, at least from his exporters.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).