Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 11 August 2005 - ADOMEX International BV v Commission

(Case T-315/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties:

Applicant(s): ADOMEX International BV (represented by G. Van der Wal, Advocate, and T. Boesmans, Advocate)

Defendant(s): Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 592 fin, Case N 372/2003 of 16 March 2005;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an importer and wholesaler of floral products and is principally engaged in importing into the Netherlands and further processing various kinds of cut foliage originating mainly in non-Member States.

The applicant is challenging the Commission's decision not to object to an alteration in aid to flower producers approved in the framework of Files N 766/95 and NN 84/00. That system of aid concerns the rules governing a trade association for floral products established by the Horticultural commodity board, a subgrouping of the Netherlands trade organisation established under public law.

In support of its application the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly did not inquire whether the aid scheme in question is compatible with the common market and is in conflict with Articles 23 and 25 EC. According to the applicant there is therefore an infringement of the duty under Article 253 EC to provide a statement of the reasons on which the decision is based.

The applicant further submits that the contested decision runs counter to Articles 23 and 25 EC. According to the applicant the aid scheme approved by the Commission does not constitute internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC but rather a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 23 and 25 EC. This conclusion follows from the fact that the charge does not affect the national and imported product with like severity, at the same transactional stage and on the basis of the same chargeable event, and that there are no national products of the same kind as or competing with the taxed imported product with the result that there cannot be said to be an internal system of taxation.

In the applicant's view, the Commission decision is also incomprehensible or at least inadequately reasoned and thus in conflict with Article 253 EC. The applicant submits that the Commission refers in the decision to earlier decisions which are unsupported by a statement of reasons or in which the Commission gives its approval to an entirely different charge that that which is appraised in the decision. Moreover, the Commission appears to be manifestly in error as to the facts, inter alia by finding in the decision that the charge at issue is not imposed on imported products.

Finally, the applicant declares that as a party concerned it was not given an opportunity to make known its views and was unable to exercise its procedural rights under Article 88(2) EC.

____________