ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
16 September 2014 (*)
(Actions for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
In Case T‑34/11,
Canon Europa NV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents,
defendant,
ACTION for annulment in part of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1),
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of S. Frimodt Nielsen (Rapporteur), President, F. Dehousse and A.M. Collins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1; ‘the Customs Code’), provides:
‘For the purposes of this Code, the following definitions shall apply:
…
(5) “Decision” means any official act by the customs authorities pertaining to customs rules giving a ruling on a particular case, such act having legal effects on one or more specific or identifiable persons;
…
(17) “Customs declaration” means the act whereby a person indicates in the prescribed form and manner a wish to place goods under a given customs procedure;
…
(20) “Release of goods” means the act whereby the customs authorities make goods available for the purposes stipulated by the customs procedure under which they are placed’.
2 Article 59(1) of the Customs Code provides:
‘All goods intended to be placed under a customs procedure shall be covered by a declaration for that customs procedure.’
3 Article 62 of the Customs Code provides:
‘1. Declarations in writing shall be made on a form corresponding to the official specimen prescribed for that purpose. They shall be signed and contain all the particulars necessary for implementation of the provisions governing the customs procedure for which the goods are declared.’
‘2. The declaration shall be accompanied by all the documents required for implementation of the provisions governing the customs procedure for which the goods are declared.’
4 In accordance with Article 63 of the Customs Code:
‘Declarations which comply with the conditions laid down in Article 62 shall be accepted by the customs authorities immediately, provided that the goods to which they refer are presented to customs.’
5 Article 66 of the Customs Code is worded as follows:
‘1. The customs authorities shall, at the request of the declarant, invalidate a declaration already accepted where the declarant furnishes proof that goods were declared in error for the customs procedure covered by that declaration or that, as a result of special circumstances, the placing of the goods under the customs procedure for which they were declared is no longer justified.
Nevertheless, where the customs authorities have informed the declarant of their intention to examine the goods, a request for invalidation of the declaration shall not be accepted until after the examination has taken place.
2. The declaration shall not be invalidated after the goods have been released, expect in cases defined in accordance with the committee procedure.
3. Invalidation of the declaration shall be without prejudice to the application of the penal provisions in force.’
6 According to Article 73(1) of the Customs Code:
‘Without prejudice to Article 74, where the conditions for placing the goods under the procedure in question are fulfilled and provided the goods are not subject to any prohibitive or restrictive measures, the customs authorities shall release the goods as soon as the particulars in the declaration have been verified or accepted without verification. The same shall apply where such verification cannot be completed within a reasonable period of time and the goods are no longer required to be present for verification purposes.’
7 In accordance with Article 74 of the Customs Code:
‘1. Where acceptance of a customs declaration gives rise to a customs debt, the goods covered by the declaration shall not be released unless the customs debt has been paid or secured. However, without prejudice to paragraph 2, this provision shall not apply to the temporary importation procedure with partial relief from import duties.
2. Where, pursuant to the provisions governing the customs procedure for which the goods are declared, the customs authorities require the provision of a security, the said goods shall not be released for the customs procedure in question until such security is provided.’
8 Article 235 of the Customs Code provides:
‘The following definitions shall apply:
(a) “repayment” means the total or partial refund of import duties or export duties which have been paid;
(b) “remission” means either a decision to waive all or part of the amount of a customs debt or a decision to render void an entry in the accounts of all or part of an amount of import or export duty which has not been paid.’
9 The procedures for the repayment and remission of duties are governed by Article 236 of the Customs Code, which provides as follows:
‘1. Import duties … shall be repaid in so far as it is established that when they were paid the amount of such duties was not legally owed or that the amount has been entered in the accounts contrary to Article 220(2).
Import duties … shall be remitted in so far as it is established that when they were entered in the accounts the amount of such duties was not legally owed or that the amount has been entered in the accounts contrary to Article 220(2).
No repayment or remission shall be granted when the facts which led to the payment or entry in the accounts of an amount which was not legally owed are the result of deliberate action by the person concerned.
2. Import duties or export duties shall be repaid or remitted upon submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within a period of three years from the date on which the amount of those duties was communicated to the debtor.
That period shall be extended if the person concerned provides evidence that he was prevented from submitting his application within the said period as a result of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
Where the customs authorities themselves discover within this period that one or other of the situations described in the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1 exists, they shall repay or remit on their own initiative.’
10 Articles 243 to 246 of the Customs Code make up Title VIII thereof, entitled ‘Appeals’. They are worded as follows:
‘Article 243
1. Any person shall have the right to appeal against decisions taken by the customs authorities which relate to the application of customs legislation, and which concern him directly and individually.
Any person who has applied to the customs authorities for a decision relating to the application of customs legislation and has not obtained a ruling on that request within the period referred to in Article 6(2) shall also be entitled to exercise the right of appeal.
The appeal must be lodged in the Member State where the decision has been taken or applied for.
2. The right of appeal may be exercised:
(a) initially, before the customs authorities designated for that purpose by the Member States;
(b) subsequently, before an independent body, which may be a judicial authority or an equivalent specialized body, according to the provisions in force in the Member States.
Article 244
The lodging of an appeal shall not cause implementation of the disputed decision to be suspended.
The customs authorities shall, however, suspend implementation of such decision in whole or in part where they have good reason to believe that the disputed decision is inconsistent with customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.
Where the disputed decision has the effect of causing import duties … to be charged, suspension of implementation of that decision shall be subject to the existence or lodging of a security. However, such security need not be required where such a requirement would be likely, owing to the debtor’s circumstances, to cause serious economic or social difficulties.
Article 245
The provisions for the implementation of the appeals procedure shall be determined by the Member States.
Article 246
This title shall not apply to appeals lodged with a view to the annulment or revision of a decision taken by the customs authorities on the basis of criminal law.’
11 By the adoption of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended (‘the Combined Nomenclature Regulation’), the Council of the European Union established a complete nomenclature of goods being imported and exported in the European Union (‘the Combined Nomenclature’ or ‘CN’). That nomenclature is set out in Annex I to that regulation.
12 Under Article 12(1) of the Combined Nomenclature Regulation, the European Commission is required to adopt each year a regulation reproducing the complete version of the CN and the rates of customs duty, as resulting from measures adopted by the Council or by the Commission. That regulation applies from 1 January of the following year.
13 Thus, Annex I to the Combined Nomenclature Regulation was replaced, inter alia, with effect from 1 January 2011, by the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87 (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’).
14 Subheading 8443 31 of Chapter 84 of the NC, in the version resulting from the contested regulation, concerns multi-function machines (‘MFMs’), namely printers, copying machines or facsimile machines which ‘perform two or more of the functions of printing, copying or facsimile transmission, capable of connecting to an automatic data-processing machine or to a network’. That subheading contains the following three subdivisions:
‘8443 31 10 — — — Machines performing the functions of copying and facsimile transmission, whether or not with a printing function, with a copying speed not exceeding 12 monochrome pages per minute;
— — — Other:
8443 31 91 — — — — Machines performing a copying function by scanning the original and printing the copies by means of an electrostatic print engine;
8443 31 99 — — — — Other.’
15 According to the CN, in the version resulting from the contested regulation, imports of MFMs falling within code 8443 31 91 are subject to a ‘conventional duty’ rate of 6%. By contrast, MFMs falling within the two other subdivisions of subheading 8443 31 benefit from an exemption.
16 The applicant, Canon Europa NV, is an importer and distributor in the European Union of digital office equipment, including MFMs.
Procedure and forms of order sought
17 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 January 2011, the applicant brought the present application.
18 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 13 April 2011, the Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
19 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 2 May 2011, Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH sought leave to intervene in support of the applicant.
20 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 21 June 2011, Olivetti SpA sought leave to intervene in support of the applicant.
21 By order of 21 September 2011, pursuant to Article 77(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the First Chamber of the Court, after hearing the parties, stayed the present case pending delivery of the judgments in Cases T‑262/10, Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission and T‑93/10 to T‑96/10, Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v ECHA.
22 The judgment in Case T‑262/10 was delivered on 25 October 2011. The delivery of the judgments in Cases T‑93/10 to T‑96/10, on 7 March 2013, ended the stay of proceedings.
23 On 7 June 2013, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties were requested to reply to a written question concerning the possible impact on the present case of the judgment of 25 October 2011 in Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission (T‑262/10, ECR, EU:T:2011:623), of the order of 5 February 2013 in BSI v Council (T‑551/11, EU:T:2013:60), and of the judgments of 7 March 2013 in Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v ECHA (T‑93/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:106), Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA (T‑94/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:107), Cindu Chemicals and Others v ECHA (T‑95/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:108) and Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA (T‑96/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:109), which they did within the prescribed period.
24 When the composition of the chambers of the Court was altered, the Judge‑Rapporteur was assigned to the Sixth Chamber, to which this case was, subsequently, assigned.
25 On 14 October 2013, by way of measures of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties were requested to reply to a written question concerning the possible impact of the judgments of 12 September 2013 in Palirria Souliotis v Commission (T‑380/11, EU:T:2013:420) and Valeo Vision v Commission (T‑457/11, EU:T:2013:414) on the present case, which they did within the prescribed period.
26 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– declare its action admissible;
– annul the contested regulation to the extent that:
(i) it excludes from the scope of subheading 8443 31 MFMs previously classified under subheading 8471 60 of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System drawn up by the World Customs Organisation (2002 version);
(ii) it imposes a customs duty on certain MFMs previously classified under subheadings 8471 60 and 8517 21 of that system;
(iii) it imposes customs duties on certain MFMs for which the European Union had undertaken to eliminate all customs duties;
– order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.
27 The Commission contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action as inadmissible;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
28 Under Article 114(1) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure, if a party submits a separate document seeking a ruling from the Court on an objection of admissibility, the Court may then decide on the application or reserve its decision for the final judgment.
29 In the present case, the Court has decided to rule on the plea of inadmissibility submitted by the Commission without going to the substance of the case.
30 Under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, ‘[a]ny natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures’.
31 The applicant claims that it has standing to bring proceedings because the contested regulation is a regulatory act which is of direct concern to it and does not entail implementing measures. In support of its claim relating to the absence of implementing measures, it states that the importer is legally obliged to classify an MFM with a fax function and a speed exceeding 12 pages per minute or without a fax function regardless of its copying speed under CN code 8443 31 91 in its customs declaration. Such classification obligation is not conditional on the adoption of any additional implementing measures. The applicant submits that no decision which could be appealed before the national courts has been adopted throughout the import procedure and adds that such decision would not allow it to challenge the tariff classification and the duty rate applicable.
32 The Commission contends, in essence, that the contested regulation does not directly affect the applicant and in any event requires implementing measures. As to the remainder, the applicant acknowledges that it is not an addressee of the contested regulation, nor individually concerned by it. Therefore, in the present case, it does not have standing to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
33 Firstly, it should be noted that, as the parties themselves agree, the contested regulation is a regulatory act within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The meaning of ‘regulatory act’ must be understood as covering all acts of general application apart from legislative acts (see judgment of 3 October 2013 in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, C‑583/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:625, paragraphs 58 to 61, and judgment in Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission, paragraph 23 above, EU:T:2011:623, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). The contested regulation is of general application, in that it applies to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects concerning categories of persons envisaged in general and in the abstract (judgment in Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission, paragraph 23 above, EU:T:2011:623, paragraph 23). Moreover, the contested regulation does not constitute a legislative act because it was not adopted in accordance with either the ordinary legislative procedure or the special legislative procedure within the meaning of paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 289 TFEU (order of 4 June 2012 in Eurofer v Commission, T‑381/11, ECR, EU:T:2012:273, paragraphs 43 and 44). The contested regulation is an act adopted by the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers, on the basis of Articles 9 and 12 of the Combined Nomenclature Regulation.
34 As to whether the contested regulation entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, it should be noted that that regulation introduces inter alia three subdivisions in subheading 8443 31 concerning MFMs.
35 The direct consequence of the contested regulation is to oblige the applicant, like any other importer of the goods concerned, when importing them into the customs territory of the European Union, to place them under the subdivisions of CN subheading 8443 31 in the customs declaration which, in accordance with Article 59(1) of the Customs Code, it is obliged to draw up for the purposes of placing them under a given customs procedure.
36 However, that obligation in itself produces no real and definitive legal effects on the importer in question. In particular, it does not in itself entail a decision on the tariff classification indicated by the importer in its customs declaration, nor, consequently, on the amount of customs duties which it will potentially have to pay (judgments in Palirria Souliotis v Commission, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2013:420, paragraph 30, and Valeo Vision v Commission, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2013:414, paragraph 60).
37 In that regard, it should be noted that, although it is true that the information necessary for the application of customs rules to goods is determined, not on the basis of the customs authorities’ findings, but on the basis of the information provided by the declarant, none the less, the customs declaration, which by its nature is a unilateral act, is not a ‘decision’ within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Customs Code (judgment of 15 September 2011 in DP grup, C‑138/10, ECR, EU:C:2011:587, paragraphs 34 and 35).
38 In fact, for the classification established by the CN to produce real and definitive legal effects on the importer at issue, it is always necessary that national measures have been adopted (judgments in Palirria Souliotis v Commission, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2013:420, paragraph 32, and Valeo Vision v Commission, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2013:414, paragraph 62).
39 Indeed, the mere acceptance by the customs authorities of the customs declaration is not sufficient in that regard. Where those authorities accept a customs declaration, signed by the declarant or its representative, Article 63 of the Customs Code requires that they confine themselves to ascertaining that the purely formal requirements, laid down in Article 62 of that code, are complied with and that the goods at issue have been presented to customs. Consequently, when a customs declaration is accepted, those authorities do not decide on the accuracy of the information provided by the declarant, including, in particular, the tariff classification referred to by it, for which the latter assumes responsibility (see, to that effect, judgment in DP grup, paragraph 37 above, EU:C:2011:587, paragraph 39). In other words, the acceptance of the customs declaration cannot, in itself, constitute a decision on the tariff classification and the rate of duty applicable.
40 After the acceptance of customs declarations made in writing, and even after release of the goods, the customs authorities may verify the information provided by the declarant, in accordance with Article 68 of the Customs Code. That verification may be in the form of a simple document check relating to the declaration and the documents accompanying it or an examination of the goods, possibly together with samples for analysis or for detailed examination.
41 If there is no verification of the customs declaration, the particulars of the latter are to be used for the purposes of applying the provisions governing the customs procedure chosen by the declarant and, in principle, the customs authorities are to release the goods at issue (Article 71(2) and Article 73(1) of the Customs Code).
42 In that situation, where, as in the present case, duties are payable, goods may not be released unless the customs debt has been paid or secured (Article 74 of the Customs Code). Generally, the amount of those duties is calculated by the customs authorities and is entered by those authorities in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium (Article 217(1) of the Customs Code), before being brought to the debtor’s attention by those authorities (Article 221(1) of the Customs Code). That communication therefore includes, in particular, a decision on the tariff classification used by the declarant.
43 In accordance with Article 221(2) of the Customs Code, the customs authorities may specify that the communication referred to in Article 221(1) shall not be made where the amount determined by them corresponds with the amount indicated by the declarant, for guidance, in the customs declaration, since it is understood that release of the goods at issue is then equivalent to that communication. In that case, release of the goods entails, in particular, the agreement of those authorities as to the tariff classification indicated by the declarant.
44 Where the customs authorities verify the customs declaration and do not find any omissions, they must release the goods and one of the situations set out in paragraphs 42 and 43 above will apply.
45 Conversely, if the verification produces results which are inconsistent with the particulars contained in the customs declaration, in particular as regards the tariff classification of the goods at issue and the determination of the applicable duty rate, those results will serve as the basis for implementation of the provisions governing the customs procedure under which the goods are placed. Thus, the customs authorities might adopt a tariff classification different from that indicated in the customs declaration, which could lead to the payment of an amount of duties different from that indicated in that declaration. The communication, to the debtor, of the amount thus payable includes, in particular, a decision on the tariff classification stated in the customs declaration (see paragraph 42 above).
46 It should be added that the customs authorities may on occasion take samples of the goods imported for analysis or for detailed examination and may release those goods without waiting for the results of that analysis or examination. Where, in the light of those results, they subsequently conclude that those goods are to be classified under a tariff subheading different from that indicated in the declaration and that, as a result, additional duties are payable, the notice requesting the debtor to pay them will entail a definitive decision as to the declared tariff classification. Likewise, it follows from Article 78(2) of the Customs Code that, after releasing the goods, the customs authorities may carry out an inspection subsequent to the customs declaration, which could also result in an amendment of the declared tariff classification and, therefore, in the payment of additional duties.
47 It follows that the introduction of subdivisions in a subheading of Combined Nomenclature effected by regulations such as the regulation contested in the present case is liable to produce real and definitive legal effects on the situation of importers only through the intervention of individual measures taken by the national customs authorities following submission of the customs declaration, since those measures could, depending on the case, lead to the release of the goods or the communication to the debtor of the amount of duty payable.
48 Therefore, the contested regulation cannot be classified as an act which does not entail implementing measures, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
49 That finding cannot be called in question by the applicant’s argument that the contested regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States, so that individuals are directly bound to apply it without the need for national implementing measures. That argument is relevant solely in the context of the assessment of the requirements for direct concern. The question whether or not the contested regulation leaves a margin of discretion to the national authorities responsible for the implementing measures is irrelevant in ascertaining whether that regulation entails implementing measures (order in Eurofer v Commission, paragraph 33 above, EU:T:2012:273, paragraph 59).
50 Nor is that finding called in question by the objective sought by the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Admittedly, that objective is to avoid a situation in which a natural or legal person would have to break the law in order to have access to justice (judgment of 19 December 2013 in Telefónica v Commission, C‑274/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:852, paragraph 27, and order in Eurofer v Commission, paragraph 33 above, EU:T:2012:273, paragraph 60). However, the applicant’s situation is not that at which the abovementioned objective is directed. In the present case, the applicant may, in principle, challenge the national implementing measures of the contested regulation and, in that context, plead the unlawfulness of the contested regulation before the national courts.
51 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that secondary EU law has expressly prescribed the remedy available to import duty debtors who consider that such duties have been wrongly imposed on them by the customs authorities. That remedy is exercisable at national level, in accordance with the appeals procedure implemented by the Member State in question in compliance with the principles set out in Articles 243 to 246 of the Customs Code. On such an appeal, such a debtor may, in addition, request the competent court seised of the proceedings to make a reference, in accordance with heading (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the Community provision on the basis of which the decision to impose duties was adopted (see judgment of 9 July 2008 in Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission, T‑429/04, EU:T:2008:263, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited, and order in BSI v Council, paragraph 23 above, EU:T:2013:60, paragraph 63).
52 In particular, it must be held that the release of goods or, depending on the case, the communication of the amount of duty payable, inasmuch as they entail inter alia a decision on the subdivision of the tariff subheading referred to by the importer in its customs declaration, clearly have legal effects on the importer’s situation and must therefore be open to challenge at the national level. That finding applies even if those national implementing measures are based on a tariff classification effected correctly by the importer in its customs declaration (judgment in Valeo Vision v Commission, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2013:414, paragraph 76).
53 In such a situation, the importer has, in any event, on the one hand, in accordance with Article 66 of the Customs Code, the opportunity to request the competent customs authorities to invalidate its declaration (judgment in DP grup, paragraph 37 above, EU:C:2011:587, paragraphs 42 to 45) and, on the other, the opportunity to submit to the competent customs authorities, on the basis of Article 236 of the Customs Code, an application for repayment or remission of the duties which it considers to have been wrongly charged to it.
54 The above findings also apply where the ordinary customs import clearance procedure is simplified or where the goods are declared by means of computerised procedures. It is apparent from Article 76 of the Customs Code that the purpose of such procedures is only to simplify completion of formalities and procedures and not to derogate from the powers delegated to the national customs authorities. Use of simplified procedures does not therefore mean that no measure is taken, even implicitly, by the customs authorities (see, to that effect, order in BSI v Council, paragraph 23 above, EU:T:2013:60, paragraph 49). In those circumstances, the applicant is not justified in claiming that, in order to assert its rights, it is compelled to infringe the provisions whose annulment it seeks.
55 Accordingly, the contested regulation does not constitute a regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Since the applicant does not submit and has not adduced any evidence capable of showing that it is individually concerned by the provisions which it challenges, it follows from all the foregoing considerations that it does not have standing to bring an action for the annulment of those provisions. Consequently, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible.
56 It follows that it is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe and Olivetti (see, to that effect, order of 3 April 2014 in CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission, T‑2/13, EU:T:2014:226, paragraphs 55 and 56).
Costs
57 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
2. It is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA;
3. Canon Europa NV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Luxembourg, 16 September 2014.
E. Coulon | | S. Frimodt Nielsen |