11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/45

(Case T-466/14)

2014/C 261/72

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—Partially annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2014, in that it held that the remission of import duties in accordance with Article 236 in conjunction with Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code [Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92] was justified and that the remission of another amount of import duty was not justified in a particular case (file REM 02/2013) as regards the refusal to remit import duties which is considered, wrongly, not to be justified, and

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration in relation to Article 872a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

—The Applicant submits that in the context of a procedure such as that of remission, in which the Commission may request all the additional information it considers appropriate and must give reasons for adopting a unfavourable decision, a decision that includes reasons for the refusal other than those included in its previous communication is contrary to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

—According to the Applicant the conditions laid down in settled case-law and forming the basis of numerous previous Commission decisions allowing remissions in the tuna sector in the past have been satisfied. In particular, the legislation is complex, the exporter did not give an incorrect version, the interpretation of the provisions on the basis of correction information is different, the Commission is in part responsible and the competent authorities persisted in their error and never applied the provisions correctly.