# C_2010063EN.01002101.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-488/09)

2010/C 63/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | If, after a Member State has detected an irregularity in the customs treatment of a TIR transport operation and has made a claim for payment of the amount corresponding to the assessment issued to the local guaranteeing association, the place where the infringement was actually committed is determined, is it compatible with Article 454(3) and Article 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 for the Member State where the infringement was committed to initiate new proceedings to recover the duties owed by the persons principally liable and by the guaranteeing association of the place where the infringement was actually committed, up to the limit of its liability, where the place where the infringement was committed is determined after the expiry of the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If, after a Member State has detected an irregularity in the customs treatment of a TIR transport operation and has made a claim for payment of the amount corresponding to the assessment issued to the local guaranteeing association, the place where the infringement was actually committed is determined, is it compatible with Article 454(3) and Article 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 for the Member State where the infringement was committed to initiate new proceedings to recover the duties owed by the persons principally liable and by the guaranteeing association of the place where the infringement was actually committed, up to the limit of its liability, where the place where the infringement was committed is determined after the expiry of the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation?

1

If the answer is in the affirmative:

| 2. | May the guaranteeing association of the Member State in which the irregularity was actually committed claim, under Articles 454(3) and 455 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 or Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, that the right to recover the amount of the guaranteed liability is time-barred because the prescribed time-limit has expired and it had no knowledge of the facts before the expiry of that time-limit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May the guaranteeing association of the Member State in which the irregularity was actually committed claim, under Articles 454(3) and 455 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 or Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, that the right to recover the amount of the guaranteed liability is time-barred because the prescribed time-limit has expired and it had no knowledge of the facts before the expiry of that time-limit?

| 3. | Does the claim for payment made against the guaranteeing association of the State which detected the irregularity by the customs authorities of that State under Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention have suspensory effect with respect to the proceedings initiated against the guaranteeing association of the place where the infringement was committed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the claim for payment made against the guaranteeing association of the State which detected the irregularity by the customs authorities of that State under Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention have suspensory effect with respect to the proceedings initiated against the guaranteeing association of the place where the infringement was committed?

| 4. | Can the last sentence of Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention be interpreted as meaning that the time-limit which it establishes is applicable to the State of the place of infringement even where the State which detected the irregularity did not suspend the demand for payment against the guaranteeing association, despite the existence of criminal proceedings relating to the same acts found to have been committed? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the last sentence of Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention be interpreted as meaning that the time-limit which it establishes is applicable to the State of the place of infringement even where the State which detected the irregularity did not suspend the demand for payment against the guaranteeing association, despite the existence of criminal proceedings relating to the same acts found to have been committed?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

1

---