6.  The applicant company, Service Benz Com S.R.L., is a Commerciale company founded in 1993 under Romanian law and based in Adunaţii Copăceni.
7.  On 11 May 2010 the applicant company, whose main activity is the retail distribution of fuel in specialised outlets, entered into a contract with company “N.” SARL for the carriage of “automobile lubricants and other goods”. The contract stipulated that it was incumbent on the company N. to “complete the transport documents with the requisite, correct and accurate information”.
8.  On the same day, two fuel tankers belonging to the company S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. were loaded in Bulgaria, in the presence of a tax office representative. After the tankers had been loaded the representative sealed them.
9.  Before the two fuel tankers could reach their destination, they were stopped for inspection by representatives of the Romanian fraud squad. After laboratory analyses, the Romanian authorities found that the liquid transported did not have the same specifications as those indicated in the transport documents.
10.  By official report of offence of 7 June 2010, the fraud squad representatives decided to:
– impose on the company “N”, the owner of the goods carried, a fine of RON 100,000 (approximately EUR 23,000) for non-compliance with the regulations on goods subject to excise duty pursuant to Article 220 § 1 (k) of the Code of Tax Procedure (“CPF”); and
– confiscate the goods (the liquid carried) and the two fuel tankers belonging to the applicant company, pursuant to Article 220 § 2 (a) and (b) CPF.
11.  The applicant company challenged the part of that official report relating to the confiscation of its two fuel tankers. Before the Slobozia Court of First Instance it argued that:
– it had only carried its customer’s goods and accordingly held no responsibility for their compliance with the law;
– Article 220 § 1 (k) CPF had not been applicable to it since, according to the transport documents in its possession, it had not been transporting goods subject to excise duty.
12.  By judgment of 15 November 2010 the Slobozia Court of First Instance allowed the applicant company’s challenge and annulled the part of the official report relating to the confiscation of the fuel tankers. The trial court held as follows:
– the transport company’s responsibility could not be incurred because it had not been in a position to verify the legal conformity of the goods and a tax office representative had sealed the two fuel tankers after loading; and
– in the instant case the confiscation had therefore been unacceptable and unlawful.
13.  The tax authorities appealed against that judgment.
14.  On 28 February 2011 the Ialomiţa County Court allowed the tax authorities’ appeal: it quashed the judgment and, ruling on the merits, dismissed the applicant company’s challenge as being ill-founded. The court reasoned as follows:
– the administrative offence laid down in Article 220 § 2 (b) CPF authorised the ancillary penalty of confiscation, without specifying whether the property to be confiscated belonged to the administrative offender or to a third party;
– furthermore, Articles 24 and 25 of Government Ordinance No. 2/2001 of 12 July 2001 governing administrative offences provided for the eventuality of the confiscated property belonging to someone other than the administrative offender.
The court gave the following reasons for its judgment:
“... the owner of the confiscated property, the company Service Benz Com SARL, is not an administrative offender, such that there is no need to [discuss] any fault on its part; the confiscation is conducted exclusively in pursuance of the law as an ancillary penalty; it can only be annulled in the event of breach of the relevant legal provisions.
The ground of appeal based on negligence on the part of the transporter, who was directly responsible for the safety and lawfulness of the goods transported, is also well-founded.”