EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0580
Case T-580/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
Case T-580/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
Case T-580/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
OJ C 315, 15.9.2014, p. 70–71
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 315/70 |
Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
(Case T-580/14)
2014/C 315/115
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: I. Toda Jiménez, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision; |
— |
recognise and declare the applicant’s right to the remission of the customs duties in the amount of EUR 2 4 53 003.38 imposed on it in the assessment decision of 27 June 2011 of the Dependencia Regional de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de la delegación Especial de Cataluña (Regional Customs and Excise Office, Catalonia), under the tax heading ‘Community external tariff’, in respect of the financial years 2006, 2007 and 2008, and |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in this action for annulment. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present proceedings seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 15 April 2014 (File REM 02/2012) refusing it remission of customs duties imposed on import operations of ‘flavoured or coloured sugar syrups’ originally declared as processed in Andorra, operations in which it acted as customs agent and indirect representative of the importer.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the Customs Code, as a result of the Commission’s error in its assessment of the special situation and failure to assess the facts relevant to the decision.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, since there was no ‘deception’ or ‘obvious negligence’ which would exclude the remission of duty claimed.
|