Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:439
Date: 2002-07-11
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import 
duties — Remission of compensatory interest on the amount of duties owing — 
Powers of the Commission — Not included 
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 
905 and 907) 
I - 2527 
SUMMARY — CASE C-156/00 
2. Own resources of the European Communities — Post-clearance recovery of import or 
export duties — Communication of the amount of duties to the debtor — Limitation 
period — Not included 
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 221(3)) 
3. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import 
duties — Circumstances in which 'no deception or obvious negligence' may be 
attributed to the person concerned — Concept of obvious negligence 
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239(1) and Art. 220) 
1. The mere fact that a possible remission 
of customs duties following a decision 
by the Commission on the basis of 
Articles 905 and 907 of Regulation 
No 2454/93 laying down provisions 
for the implementation of Regulation 
No 2913/92 establishing the Commu­
nity Customs Code has consequences 
for the compensatory interest applied 
on those duties by the competent 
customs authorities does not in any 
way imply that the Commission is 
empowered to proceed with the 
remission of that interest. The Com­
mission is competent only to take a 
decision on the remission of import 
duties and may not rule on compensa­
tory interest. 
(see paras 48-49) 
2. Under Article 221(3) of Regulation 
No 2913/92 establishing the Commu­
nity Customs Code, communication to 
the debtor of the amount of duty owed 
is not to take place after the expiry of a 
period of three years from the date on 
which the customs debt was incurred, 
except where it is as a result of an act 
that could give rise to criminal court 
proceedings that the customs auth­
orities were unable to determine the 
exact amount legally due. 
It is for the Member States and their 
competent authorities to implement 
that rule; the Commission is not 
empowered to rule on the question 
whether the recovery procedure for the 
customs debt was carried out in 
accordance with that rule. 
Thus, when it takes a decision on an 
application for remission of customs 
duties referred by a Member State 
following an application submitted by 
I - 2528 
NETHERLANDS v COMMISSION 
the debtor to the competent customs 
authorities, the Commission is obliged 
to examine the application in question 
as it is and may not question the time 
periods within which the debt recovery 
procedure was instituted by the cus­
toms authorities. 
(see paras 62, 64-65) 
3. In order to determine whether or not 
the debtor has demonstrated 'obvious 
negligence' within the meaning of the 
second indent of Article 239(1) of 
Regulation No 2913/92 establishing 
the Community Customs Code, it is 
appropriate to apply by analogy the 
criteria used in the context of 
Article 220 of the Customs Code to 
ascertain whether or not an error 
committed by the customs authorities 
was detectable by a trader, that is, 
according to the complexity of the 
applicable rules, and the trader's 
experience and diligence. 
(see paras 92-93, 96, 98) 
I - 2529