# C_2006190EN.01000901.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/9 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-230/06)

(2006/C 190/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze

Question(s) referred

| (1) | (a)
Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC( 1 ), as amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC( 2 ), to be interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit within which the administration of the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible? (b)
For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision, are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applicable? (c)
In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation? | (a) | Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC( 1 ), as amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC( 2 ), to be interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit within which the administration of the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible? | (b) | For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision, are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applicable? | (c) | In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation? |
| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC( 1 ), as amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC( 2 ), to be interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit within which the administration of the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible? | | | | | | |
| (b) | For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision, are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applicable? | | | | | | |
| (c) | In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation? | | | | | | |

| (2) | In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is Article 11a(2) applicable? |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| (3) | Is the question of whether the customs authorities have competence to be determined according to the criteria laid down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of Regulation No 92/2913/EEC( 3 )? |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---

( 1 )  OJ L 107, p. 1.

( 2 )  OJ L 253, p. 1.

( 3 )  OJ L 302, p. 1.

---