CELEX: C2001/079/41
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-377/00: Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Philip Morris International Inc., against the Commission of the European Communities

10.3.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Philip Morris
                                                                         International Inc., against the Commission of the Euro-
The applicant, a privately held company incorporated under                                       pean Communities
the Belgian laws, processes parboiled and non-parboiled brown
rice into various milled rice products. During the period from                                    (Case T-377/00)
1 July 1997 through 31 December 1998, it imported brown
rice purchased from a related U.S. company, Uncle Ben’s Inc.,                                      (2001/C 79/41)
in Belgium, under a Community customs duty regime known
as the Cumulative Recovery System (CRS).
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
By its present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the
Commission decision addressed to the Director General of the
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Belgian customs administration (‘BCA’), and contained in the
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
letter of Directorate General Budget (‘DG Budget’) dated
                                                                         European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Philip
29 September 2000 (Document no BUDG/B/03/D(00)/38549)
                                                                         Morris International Inc., a company established under the
(the contested decision).
                                                                         laws of Delaware (USA), represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery
                                                                         and Jacques Derenne, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff,
The contested decision communicates to the BCA the final                 Brussels.
position of the Commission with regard to the determination
and settlement of the definitive amount of customs duties due
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
by the applicant under the CRS. Specifically, the decision,
basing itself explicitly on the findings of report no 98.6.073 of
                                                                         —     annul the Commission Decision to bring the action filed
the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’),
                                                                               on 3 November 2000 before the New York District
                                                                               Court against the applicant, as publicly announced by
—     rejects the import prices that had been declared by the                  Commissioner Michaele Schreyer in Press Release
      applicant under the CRS and previously accepted by the                   IP/00/1255 of 6 November 2000
      BCA,
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
—     directs the BCA to determine the CRS import prices of
      the applicant, and the definitive amount of import duties
      due by the applicant under the CRS, in accordance with
      the detailed calculations of the OLAF report, and                  Pleas in law and main arguments
—     directs the BCA to recover the net amount of CRS import            The applicant is, through its affiliates and subsidiaries, engaged
      duties which are allegedly due by the applicant according          in the sale of tobacco products outside the United States.
      to the detailed calculations of the OLAF report, but had           According to the applicant, the European Community has filed
      been previously reimbursed to the applicant by the BCA.            an action in a United States court against the applicant to
                                                                         recover inter alia, in the form of damages, customs and duties
                                                                         and value-added tax related to alleged smuggling. The applicant
The applicant brings forward three grounds for annulment of
                                                                         challenges the decision to take legal proceedings announced
the contested decision. It alleges that the Commission:
                                                                         by the Commission in the above-mentioned press release.
—     has committed a manifest error of assessment in the
      application of the CRS Regulation (1);                             The applicant submits that the European Community (rep-
                                                                         resented by the Commission) lacks competence to bring an
—     has infringed fundamental principles of law forming part           action before a United States court, and that it has acted
      of the Community legal order, such as the rights of                outside the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the EC
      defence and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary             Treaty, as it is only the Member States which have competence
      action; and                                                        to seek allegedly unpaid customs and duties taxes.
—     has infringed an essential procedural requirement under            In the alternative, the applicant submits that even if the
      both Regulation 2185/96 and Regulation 1073/00 with                European Community were competent to bring the action, the
      regard to the OLAF report which is the foundation of the           Community has infringed essential procedural requirements of
      decision.                                                          Article 280 EC and lacks financial and legal interest in bringing
                                                                         an action on its own behalf as well as competence to bring an
                                                                         action on behalf of the Member States.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) 703/97 of 18 April 1997 introdu-
    cing for a trial period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1997 a
    cumulative recovery system for determining certain import duties     Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contested decision
    on rice and amending Rebulation (EC) No 1503/96 (OJ L 104,           infringes general Community principles and constitutes a
    p. 12).                                                              misuse of powers.