# C_2006022EN.01000802.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België by judgment of that court of 8 November 2005 in Reyniers & Sogama bvba v (1) Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (2) Belgian State

(Case C-407/05)

(2006/C 22/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 8 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Reyniers & Sogama bvba and 1. Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau 2. Belgian State on the following questions:

‘Are Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 (1) of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, inserted by Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 (2) of 29 May 1990 amending that regulation, Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 (3) of 17 September 1990 on Community transit, and Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 (4) of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, to be interpreted as meaning:

1

2

3

4

| — | that, despite the fact that the notification to the declarant made no mention of the three-month period within which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed can be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, a court is able to rule, in accordance with facts which are able to support its decision, that notification without mention of the three-month period nevertheless meets the objective sought by the legal rule; or |
| --- | --- |

—

that, despite the fact that the notification to the declarant made no mention of the three-month period within which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed can be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, a court is able to rule, in accordance with facts which are able to support its decision, that notification without mention of the three-month period nevertheless meets the objective sought by the legal rule; or

| — | that the notification to the declarant must compulsorily mention the three-month period within which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed can be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, with the result that the competent authority can commence recovery only after it has explicitly informed the declarant that it has three months within which to furnish the proof requested and in the case where that proof has not been furnished within that period?’ |
| --- | --- |

—

that the notification to the declarant must compulsorily mention the three-month period within which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed can be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, with the result that the competent authority can commence recovery only after it has explicitly informed the declarant that it has three months within which to furnish the proof requested and in the case where that proof has not been furnished within that period?’

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21.

2

(3)  OJ 1990 L 262, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.

4

---