Action brought on 14 March 2006 - Apple Computer International v Commission

(Case T-82/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Computer International (Cork, Ireland) [represented by: G. Breen, Solicitor, P. Sreenan, SC, B. Quigley, BL]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Declare that the classification contained in item 2 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/2005 in fact represents a decision, which although in the form of a regulation, is of direct and individual concern to the applicant;

annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 346, p. 7) in so far as it classifies the colour monitor of the liquid crystal device type described in item 2 of the table in the annex to that regulation under CN Code 8528 21 90;

declare that monitors meeting the technical specifications contained in item 2 of the annex to the contested Regulation are properly classified in heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature;

order the Commission of the European Communities to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested Regulation classifies four Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) at two different CN codes in the Combined Nomenclature. The applicant notes that, although the device referred to at item 2 in the annex to the contested regulation (the device) is not identified as the applicant's product, the technical characteristics and description contained therein conclusively identify the product as being the Apple 20" LCD.

The applicant submits that by classifying its 20" LCD at heading 8528, the Commission has infringed Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff¹ and committed a manifest error in the interpretation of the Community rules on tariff classification.

The applicant submits that the device satisfies, pursuant to heading 8471, as interpreted in Legal Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, the criteria for classification as a "unit" of an automatic data-processing machine, is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing machine and, moreover, is not capable of performing a specific function other than data processing. According to the applicant, the classification under heading 8528 therefore constitutes a manifest error of interpretation of the Community rules on tariff classification.

Finally, the applicant claims that the contested classification is in direct conflict with the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf v Hauptzollamt Augsburg [1994] ECR I-1945.

____________

¹ - OJ L 256, p. 1