Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/22

—

(Case C-53/14 P)

2014/C 102/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—annul the decision of the General Court as it is set out in the operative part of the judgment given on 3 December 2013 in Case T-573/11;

—grant the form of order sought at first instance by the company JAS Jet Air Service France in so far as it seeks the annulment of the Decision of the European Commission dated 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 dismissing the application for remission of import duties amounting to EUR 1 001 778,20 which it presented on 24 January 2008;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment by which the General Court upheld the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2011 dismissing the application for remission of import duties presented by the appellant.

In the first place, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Articles 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and 239 of the Community Customs Code, in so far as it failed to acknowledge the existence of a ‘special situation’ allowing the remission applied for. The General Court maintained that the appellant’s situation was not similar to that of the company CALBERSON BV (case REM 10/01), to which the Commission had granted the remission.

In the second place, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed the articles cited above, in so far as it failed to take account, for the purpose of recognising the existence of a ‘special situation’, of the deficiency which took place at the level of the internal procedure for the issue and review of import authorisations without VAT, known as A12 (Article 275 of the French General Tax Code and its implementing provisions). The General Court reversed the burden of proof, and therefore infringed the general principles of law, by holding that it was for the appellant to establish precisely the consequences of that deficiency.

—

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

—