# C_2016111EN.01000501.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-679/15)

(2016/C 111/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, ‘the CC’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person becomes a customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3) of the CC as the person who introduced goods if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, brought about the unlawful introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, ‘the CC’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person becomes a customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3) of the CC as the person who introduced goods if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, brought about the unlawful introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative:
  Is the second indent of Article 202(3) of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that






  a) | a legal person participates in an unlawful introduction (even) if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, was involved in that introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

Is the second indent of Article 202(3) of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that

a)

a legal person participates in an unlawful introduction (even) if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, was involved in that introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility, and

| b) | in the case of legal persons who participate in an unlawful introduction, the subjective element that they ‘were aware or should reasonably have been aware’ is to be determined by reference to the natural person in the legal person’s undertaking to whom the matter is entrusted, even if he is not the statutory representative of the legal person? |
| --- | --- |

b)

in the case of legal persons who participate in an unlawful introduction, the subjective element that they ‘were aware or should reasonably have been aware’ is to be determined by reference to the natural person in the legal person’s undertaking to whom the matter is entrusted, even if he is not the statutory representative of the legal person?

| 3. | If the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative:
  Is Article 212a of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that whether the conduct of a participant involves fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence is to be determined, in the case of a legal person, solely by reference to the conduct of the legal person or its organs, or is the conduct of a natural person employed by it and entrusted with the task within the scope of his responsibility to be attributed to it? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 212a of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that whether the conduct of a participant involves fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence is to be determined, in the case of a legal person, solely by reference to the conduct of the legal person or its organs, or is the conduct of a natural person employed by it and entrusted with the task within the scope of his responsibility to be attributed to it?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

---