# C_2008128EN.01000501.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy), Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-230/06) (1)

1

(Customs union - Community transit - Recovery of a customs debt - Competent Member State - Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence - Time-limits - Liability of the principal)

(2008/C 128/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze,

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1) and Article 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Discharge by the customs office of destination evidenced by forged documents — Period prescribed for notifying the fact that a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination — Applicability

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred. If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. On the other hand, if the place where the offence or irregularity was committed cannot be thus established, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover the customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred. If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. On the other hand, if the place where the offence or irregularity was committed cannot be thus established, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover the customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92.

| 2. | Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within the 11-month and 3-month time-limits laid down by Article 379(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2454/93. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within the 11-month and 3-month time-limits laid down by Article 379(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2454/93.

| 3. | It is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to hold a customs clearance agent, in his capacity as principal, liable for a customs debt. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to hold a customs clearance agent, in his capacity as principal, liable for a customs debt.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---