Action brought on 22 September 2010 - Gap SA granen & producten v Commission
(Case T-437/10)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Gap SA granen & producten NV (Zoersel, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ronse and A. Hansebout, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to pay compensation in respect of the harm which the applicant has suffered, more specifically, to pay it the sum of EUR 295 690.43, increased by Belgian statutory interest from the respective dates on which the applicant paid the disputed import duties, and also to order the European Union to pay a provisional sum of EUR 30 000, plus Belgian statutory interest, in respect of the further harm which the applicant has suffered.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is seeking compensation for the harm which it claims to have suffered by reason of the fact that the European Commission, when setting import duties on durum wheat, specifically in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009 (OJ 2009 L 259, p. 5), acted unlawfully and applied incorrect market prices and freight costs.
In support of its claim for compensation, the applicant submits that the Commission breached Article 4 of Regulation No 1249/96
1 and the general duty of care by taking into account incorrect prices and freight costs for the purpose of imposing and calculating the import duties.
In the applicant's view, the breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1249/96 is sufficiently serious because the Commission did not have any discretionary power when it adopted Regulation No 919/2009. Moreover, it argues, the Commission's breach of the duty of care is in itself a sufficiently serious breach.
The applicant concludes by submitting that the harm which it suffered was attributable to an improperly imposed and wrongly calculated duty, the precise amount of which the applicant proves. In addition, the applicant claims also to have suffered harm by reason of the time which it has had to devote to the present case and the lawyers' fees which it has been obliged to incur.
____________1 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (OJ 1996 L 161, p. 125).