You are on page 1of 1

C 258/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15.8.

98

Ð By omitting to make any finding as regards the Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
question whether consultation took place between the
Directorate-General empowered to adopt a decision
concerning classification and the Directorate-General Ð Infringement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
having power to assess the requirements of the service (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of
and whether, if such consultation took place, it was import or export duties (2), alternatively of Article
conducted in a proper fashion, that is to say, by 239(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
omitting to verify whether or not the appointing establishing the Community Customs Code (the
authority based its decision on incorrect or incomplete CCC') (3): the Netherlands Government considers that,
material facts, the Court of First Instance failed to by applying to the present case the concept of special
exercise its powers of judicial review in relation to acts circumstances' within the meaning of Article 13(1) of
of the appointing authority. Regulation No 1430/79, the Commission has
committed a manifest error of assessment. First, the
Commission failed to take into account the fact that
Ð The proceedings before the Court of First Instance the external Community transit system does not
were irregular: by informing the appellant that it function perfectly and is susceptible to fraud. Second,
would not take into account the observations made the Commission omitted to take into consideration the
with regard to the judgment in Case T-12/97 fact that the process of discharging customs
Barnett (2), which it had itself requested, the Court of documentation is so time-consuming that, before it
First Instance misled the appellant as to her legitimate becomes apparent that fraud is involved, the customs
expectations. By failing to take cognizance of the debt may have risen to a substantial level as a result of
appellant's observations containing new pleas based successive transit operations. In consequence of the
on matters of fact and law which had emerged in the system provided for by the CCC, it frequently happens
course of the proceedings (consisting of the new case- in cases of documentary fraud that it does not become
law established by the Court of First Instance in its apparent to the declarant that fraud is involved until
judgment in Barnett), the Court of First Instance after 14 months have passed.
wrongfully omitted to apply Article 48(1) and the first
and second subparagraphs of Article 48(2) of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Ð Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
whereas the appellant's case was precisely the type of reasons: the contested decision is accompanied by, at
dispute for which the legislature intended to provide best, only a summary statement of reasons. The
by adopting that provision. Similarly, the contested Commission has failed to state the extent to which, as
order failed to apply the third subparagraph of a result of the defects in the operation of the external
Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Community transit system and the impracticability of
First Instance. checking within a reasonable time that customs
formalities have been properly completed, or of
adopting measures to limit the loss, liability for the
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Judgment of 5.11.1997, OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 17. whole or part of the customs debt cannot be imposed
on the customs agent.

(1) Decision of the Commission establishing that remission of
import duties pursuant to Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 is not justified in a specific
case.
Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the (2) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities
(Case C-157/98)
(98/C 258/25)

Appeal brought on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of
An action against the Commission of the European the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra T-42/96 between Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the
and Corinna Wissels, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
The Hague, acting as Agents. and the Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-163/98 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(98/C 258/26)

annul the decision of the Commission (1), communicated
to the Netherlands Government by notice of 19 February An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
1998, and order the Commission to pay the costs. 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance