You are on page 1of 2

C 63/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 4.3.

2000

Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Garage en — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
Tankstation Milder V.O.F. against the Commission of the FF 20 000 in respect of the unrecoverable expenditure
European Communities which he was obliged to incur in the defence of his
interests.
(Case T-321/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
(2000/C 63/47)
The applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully failed
(Language of the case: Dutch) to reply to the request which he had made to it for access to
certain documents, thereby infringing Article 232 EC (ex
Article 175) and Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Euratom (1) of 8 February 1994 on public access to Com-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
mission documents.
European Communities on 15 November 1999 by Garage en
Tankstation Milder V.O.F., of Gendt (Netherlands), represented
by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar. (1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)


of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
Germany;
Action brought on 17 November 1999 by Generale
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs. Conserve Spa against the Commission of the European
Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments (Case T-325/99)

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases (2000/C 63/49)
T-273/99 to T-278/99.

(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87. (Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 1999 by Generale
Conserve Spa, with Carlo Cigolini and Giuseppe Durazzo, of
the Genoa Bar, and Mathis Hengel, of the Luxembourg Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer Chambers, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve.
against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Case T-322/99)
— annul the contested decision;
(2000/C 63/48)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
(Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the The applicant contests the Commission decision of 17 June
European Communities on 16 November 1999 by Karl 1999 rejecting its application for exemption from the post-cle-
L. Meyer, domiciled in Raiatea (French Polynesia), represented arance recovery of customs duties in respect of 9 IM4
by Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an certificates — representing a total of ITL 330 517 600 —
address for service in Luxembourg c/o M. Pakowski, 20-22 relating to 9 consignments of processed and tinned tuna
Avenue Emile Reuter. deriving from raw material declared as being of Turkish origin
but later regarded as being of third-country origin on the
The applicant claims that the Court should: ground that the Turkish supplier allegedly failed to keep raw
material of Turkish or Community origin separate from stocks
— rule that Commission DG VIII has infringed Article 175 of of third-country origin and it was impossible therefore to issue
the EC Treaty; the related ATR 1 certificates.
4.3.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 63/25

According to the applicant, that decision is vitiated on the Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
grounds put forward in a separate application for annulment Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
of a similar decision (Case T-179/99 Sud Pesca Srl) (1). With munities
specific reference to the present case, the applicant alleges the
following: (Case T-328/99)

(2000/C 63/50)
— failure to comply with essential procedural requirements:
the Genoa customs authority directly issued new claims (Language of the case: English)
for recovery of the duties without any inter partes procedure
and without making any checks via the Turkish authorities.
At the same time, the customs authority stated that the An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
claims were intended solely to stop time running and ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
suggested that traders apply for non-subsequent entry in European Communities on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
the accounts. It also told the various subordinate customs Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
offices not to release subsequent imports of a similar kind of 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1JU, United Kingdom.
unless security was lodged, in accordance with the deferred
taxation procedure, pending the outcome of such claims. The applicant claims that the Court should:
In so doing, the Italian customs authorities acted in breach
of the right to appeal revised customs claims; — order the defendant to adopt all measures necessary to
protect the professional reputation of the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR


— the checks made by the Commission’s inspectors cannot 400 000 to the applicant;
be relied upon — as regards the finding of third-country
origin on which the customs claims rely — in so far as — order the defendant to bear the costs.
they were carried out unilaterally and have been challenged
by the exporter;
Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1995 the applicant submitted to the Commission under


— lack of direct, or even indirect or putative, evidence as to Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a
the non-Turkish origin of the product imported by the finding that the General Council of the Bar, an authority in the
applicant; field of the provision of legal services in the United Kingdom,
had infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC. At the same time it
requested the Commission to adopt interim measures. The
applicant now seeks compensation for the damage occasioned
to him by the unlawful failure of the Commission to adopt the
— the conditions precluding subsequent entry in the accounts interim measures requested.
are satisfied, in so far as the importer has shown good faith
and complied with the legislation in force, and the customs
authorities have acted — albeit passively — in error.

The applicant also challenges the reference in the contested Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino
decision to the concept of commercial risk. and Others against the European Parliament

(Case T-329/99)

(2000/C 63/51)
( 1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 29.
(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before


the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino and Others, with
Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand
Sablon.