# C_2005082EN.01002001.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/20

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. in liquidation against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedizionieri and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-62/05 P)

(2005/C 82/41)

Language of the case: Italian

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedizionieri and Others and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizionieri and Others, represented by G. Leone, lawyer.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1 – | Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 June 2002 (file REM 1401), notified on 2 September 2002, by which it found the remission of import duties to be unjustified, and declare on the contrary that in the present case the remission is justified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1) on the basis of special circumstances in which no negligence or deception may be attributed to the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

1 –

Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 June 2002 (file REM 1401), notified on 2 September 2002, by which it found the remission of import duties to be unjustified, and declare on the contrary that in the present case the remission is justified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1) on the basis of special circumstances in which no negligence or deception may be attributed to the appellants;

1

| 2 – | Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2 –

Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The appellants, who are customs agents, issued in October 1992 two T1 Community transit declarations that loads originating in Yugoslavia and destined for Spain contained cardboard boxes. The Italian customs authorities requested the appellants to pay the customs duties chargeable on the two loads in question declaring that the loads did not contain boxes but cigarettes.

The appellants brought legal proceedings, which they lost, and then applied to the Commission for remission of the customs duties, which it refused, holding that the appellants did not satisfy the prescribed requirements.

The appellants therefore brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities based on Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79, submitting that they could not be liable for the customs duties because in this case there are ‘special circumstances’ exempting Nordspedizionieri from the obligation to pay those duties. They claim that they were entitled to rely on the documents (commercial and transport) presented to them by the driver of the lorry at the time of the customs declaration, from which it appeared that the loads were of cardboard boxes.

The special situation permitting remission arises from the fact that the customs agent is unable to inspect the contents of lorries which ‘legitimately’ cross the border between Italy and Yugoslavia and moreover that, in the present case, the documentation appeared to be in order so that the loads cleared customs under the ‘fast track’ customs procedure.

The applicants further point to the fulfilment in the present case of the other requirement of Article 13 that there be no ‘negligence’ or ‘deception’, in that the T1 declaration was drawn up on the basis of the information given in the commercial and transport documentation.

Lastly, in the application to the Court of First Instance, the appellants pleaded in the alternative the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation EEC No 2144/87 (2), which excludes the payment of customs duties on those goods which were seized and then confiscated.

2

By judgment of 14 December 2004, the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety, holding that there were no ‘special circumstances’, and therefore leaving aside the question whether or not in the present case there was no ‘negligence or deception’.

The appeal restates the same arguments advanced at first instance, including the fact that in the present case there appears to have been an infringement of the 1965 Belgrade Agreement on mutual administrative assistance between Italy and Yugoslavia, which obliges the Yugoslav customs authorities to notify the Italian customs authorities of the transit of fiscally sensitive goods (such as cigarettes) with reference to the two lorries in question; a third lorry was stopped and the goods seized thanks to the warning received (albeit late) by the Italian customs from their Yugoslav counterparts.

---

(1)  OJ 1979 L 175 of 12.07.1979, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1987 L 201 of 22.07.1987, p. 15.

2

---