CELEX: C2000/063/52
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-330/99: Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 63/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.3.2000
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Spedition
                                                                         Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L. against the Commission
                                                                                         of the European Communities
— annul the contested decision;
                                                                                                 (Case T-330/99)
— in the alternative, declare to be unlawful and therefore
     inapplicable Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the                                  (2000/C 63/52)
     European Parliament, in conjunction with Article 30
     thereof;
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 November 1999 by Spedition
                                                                         Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L., of Flensburg (Germany),
                                                                         represented by Axel Suhr, Rechtsanwalt, of Hamburg (Germ-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          any), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Messrs De Bandt, van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11
                                                                         Rue Goethe.
By the present action, the Members of the European Parliament
on the ‘Emma Bonino List’, and the List as such — a European
manifestation of the political party to which they belong —              The applicant claims that the Court should:
seek annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 14 September
1999 declaring that Article 29(1) of the Parliament’s Rules of           (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Procedure precludes the creation of a group entitled ‘technical               Communities of 22 July 1999 (REM 22/98);
group of independent Members — mixed group’ comprising
inter alia the applicants.
                                                                         (2) in its judgment, require the defendant, pursuant to
                                                                              Article 233 EC, to grant the original applications for
                                                                              remission; and
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
raised in Case T-222/99 J.C. Martinez and Charles de Gaulle (1).
                                                                         (3) order the defendant to pay the costs.
In particular, it is submitted that the Parliament is in breach of
the fundamental principles of democracy, non-discrimination              Pleas in law and main arguments
and proportionality.
                                                                         The applicant forwarded goods from Germany to Spain as a
                                                                         principal in the context of the external Community transit
The applicants also submit that Articles 29 and 30 of the                procedure. Customs investigations indicated that the goods
Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are unlawful, should the Court           had not been properly presented at the customs office of
of First Instance find that preclusion of the group in question          destination, and that completion of the transit procedures had
does not follow from the incorrect — in their view —                     merely been feigned. By its contested decision, the Commission
interpretation espoused in the contested decision but directly           refused the application made by the German authorities for
from Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure, possibly in                remission of payment by the applicant of the customs debt
conjunction with Article 30 thereof. They maintain that the              arising. From a legal standpoint, the applicant bases its claim
faults which allegedly vitiate the contested decision are directly       in particular on the assertion that the situation represents a
attributable to the above provisions.                                    special case within the meaning of Article 899 of Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 2454/93, since it was legitimately entitled to expect
                                                                         that administrative tasks would not be performed by customs
                                                                         officials acting fraudulently. That was what happened in the
(1) Not yet published.                                                   present case, however, since the fraudulent procedures could
                                                                         not have been carried out without the complicity of a servant
                                                                         of the customs authority concerned.