Case T-153/10

Schneider España de Informática, SA

v

European Commission

(Customs union — Importation of colour television sets assembled in Turkey — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for waiver of post‑clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and for remission of those duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Commission decision rejecting that application — Annulment by the national court of decisions taken by national authorities ordering post-clearance entry of import duties in the accounts — No need to adjudicate)

Summary of the Order

1.      Actions for annulment — Action against a Commission decision rejecting an application for waiver of post-clearance recovery of import duties and for remission of customs debts by national customs authorities — Annulment, by final judicial decision, of the decision taken by national customs authorities ordering post-clearance entry of import duties in the accounts — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113; Council Regulation No 2913/92)

2.      Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action to prevent an unlawful act of a Union institution or body from recurring in the future — Admissibility — Conditions

(Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2)(b), 236 and 239)

1.      An action which seeks the annulment of a Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s request for no post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and for remission of the customs debt for which the applicant is liable in accordance with the post-clearance decisions is devoid of purpose, in so far as, following the annulment of the post‑clearance decisions by a final judicial decision, the payment of the duties at issue can no longer be claimed from the applicant and that, consequently, the applicant cannot, therefore, procure an advantage from the annulment of the contested decision.

That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the fact that the Commission decision is capable of affecting other importers. The person concerned must demonstrate a personal interest in bringing proceedings and an action for annulment may not be brought in the general interest of third parties or for the sake of legality. That personal interest must also be sufficiently direct. The mere fact that there is a third party interest in the applicant’s bringing an action for annulment of the contested decision is not sufficient, in those circumstances, to conclude that the action has not become devoid of purpose.

(see paras 19, 34, 38, 40, 57)

2.      An applicant may retain an interest in claiming the annulment of an act of a Union institution or body to prevent its alleged unlawfulness recurring in the future, but only in so far as the alleged unlawfulness is liable to recur in the future independently of the circumstances of the case which gave rise to the action brought by that applicant.

In that regard, the pleas in law relied upon by the applicant relating to, on the one hand, procedural objections which relate to it personally, and, on the other, errors allegedly made by the Commission in applying Article 220(2)(b), Article 236 and Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92, establishing the Community Customs Code, to the applicant’s particular situation in specific factual circumstances do not concern unlawfulness liable to recur in the future independently of the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 41, 42)