# C_2017053EN.01001701.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Interservice d.o.o. Koper v Sándor Horváth

(Case C-547/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 96 - External transit procedure - Definition of ‘carrier’ - Failure to produce goods at the customs office of destination - Liability - Transport subcontractor who has handed the goods over to the main carrier in the car park of the customs office of destination and subsequently again assumed responsibility for the goods in order to continue with the transport))

(2017/C 053/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interservice d.o.o. Koper

Applicant:

Defendant: Sándor Horváth

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of a ‘carrier’ under an obligation to produce goods intact at the customs office of destination in Article 96(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as referring to any person, including a transport subcontractor, who actually transports the goods moving under the external Community transit procedure and has agreed to transport the goods knowing that they are moving under that procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of a ‘carrier’ under an obligation to produce goods intact at the customs office of destination in Article 96(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as referring to any person, including a transport subcontractor, who actually transports the goods moving under the external Community transit procedure and has agreed to transport the goods knowing that they are moving under that procedure.

| 2. | Article 96(2) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a transport subcontractor, such as the subcontractor in the main proceedings, who has, first, handed over the goods to the main carrier, together with the transit document, at the car park of the customs office of destination and, second, assumed responsibility for the goods once again in order to continue with the transport, was under an obligation to ensure that the goods were produced at the customs office of destination and may be held liable for any failure to ensure that the goods were thus produced only if he was aware, when he again assumed responsibility for the goods, that the transit procedure had not been properly completed, which is a matter to be determined by the national court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 96(2) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a transport subcontractor, such as the subcontractor in the main proceedings, who has, first, handed over the goods to the main carrier, together with the transit document, at the car park of the customs office of destination and, second, assumed responsibility for the goods once again in order to continue with the transport, was under an obligation to ensure that the goods were produced at the customs office of destination and may be held liable for any failure to ensure that the goods were thus produced only if he was aware, when he again assumed responsibility for the goods, that the transit procedure had not been properly completed, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---