Action brought on 29 June 2007 - Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

(Case T-225/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: F.Goguel and F. Foucault, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Before ruling, order disclosure to the parties all of the materials, documents, reports, letters, preparatory works etc which led to the two Regulations No 2376/94 and No 710/95;

Principally, annul the decision of the Commission REM No 03/05 of 7 May 2007.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision No REM 03/05 of 7 May 2007 holding that the remission of import duties is not justified in the particular case of the applicant. That decision was issued following the application made to the Commission by the French national authorities, who had claimed from the applicant payment of anti-dumping duties on importation of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand by its subsidiary there, and on which the subsidiary had applied for remission on the basis of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.¹

The applicant considers that it is entitled to the remission on the basis of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, since, in its opinion, it satisfies the two conditions laid down in that provision.

As regards the first condition (the existence of a special situation), the applicant claims that its situation is certainly special and is the result of, first, the conduct of the Commission which changed its approach to interpretation of the legal provisions on the origin of goods without having properly informed traders, and, second, the conduct of the national authorities who followed the approach adopted by the Commission.

As regards the second condition referred to in Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (no deception or negligence), the applicant claims that it cannot be considered to have been negligent since it trusted in the validity of the initial position of the Commission's services, who, in the opinion of the applicant, decided not to employ in its case a strict application of the rules of origin but to apply to it the special anti-dumping duties on all the receivers manufactured and exported by its Thailand subsidiary.

____________

¹ - OJ L 302,p. 1.