This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0007
Case C-7/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission
Case C-7/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission
Case C-7/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission
OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 32–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 52/32 |
Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission
(Case C-7/14 P)
2014/C 52/58
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 and annul Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 in Case REM 02/09; |
|
— |
in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
By the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code (1) in holding that the error on the part of the German customs authorities could have been detected by the appellant. That is untrue. The individual provisions are complex and their wording is unclear and confusing. This is evidenced in particular by correspondence between the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Commission. In addition, the duration and extent of the erroneous practice of the German customs authorities also militate against the contention that the error could have been detected by the appellant.
Secondly, the General Court infringed the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code in erroneously finding that there had been obvious negligence on the part of the appellant.
Thirdly, the General Court failed to give sufficient reasons for its judgment on two points, with the result that the reasoning which it followed in order to arrive at its decision is incomprehensible for the appellant.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).